DATE OF MEETING: Monday, July 2, 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, Brisbine, Woltering

A. For the Regular meeting on June 18, 2001

It was moved by Commissioner Dutra to approve the minutes of June 18, 2001, as submitted. Second by Commissioner McClelland.

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

Chairwoman Moore requested that Agenda Items VII, Reports by Staff, and VIII, Reports by Commissioners, be heard following Agenda Item VI.A, Saffarinia/Key. The reason for the requested change was that she was unable to vote on the Cohousing Project and would be leaving the meeting before it was heard. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to amend the agenda as requested.

There were no oral or written communications.

Director of Planning Dorch presented the staff report.

Chairwoman Moore opened the PUBLIC HEARING.

Dennis Key, the project architect, represented the application. He explained the revisions to the design of the second dwelling unit that result in a reduction in the overall mass of the structure.

Mr. Key requested clarification on a letter submitted by Mike and Kim Franzini at 8980 Water Road, dated June 25, 2001, concerning the common driveway. Director of Planning Dorch said that the original approval of the Saffarinia project included a condition (condition #8), as follows: The common paved driveway currently between this property and the property to the south shall be eliminated.

Chairwoman Moore closed the PUBLIC HEARING.

It was moved by Commissioner Mulligan to approve a modification to a previous Design Review and Conditional Use Permit approval to allow the construction of a second dwelling unit at 14 Loma Linda Drive (Saffarinia/Key). Second by Vice Chairman Pagnusat.

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

Director of Planning Dorch announced the Cotati Philharmonic Orchestra concert on July 7, 2001, at 8 p.m. in La Plaza Park; and,

The City Council has scheduled a special joint meeting between the Design Review Committee, Planning Commission, and City Council for Monday, July 30, 2001, at 7:00 p.m.

Chairwoman Moore announced the Kid's Day Parade on Saturday, July 14, at 10 a.m.

Chairwoman Moore left the meeting due to a conflict of interest. Vice Chairman Pagnusat took over as Chairman.

Director of Planning Dorch introduced Consultant Planner David Woltering.

Consultant Planner Woltering presented the staff report. He reviewed the recommendations from the Design Review Committee. The three key issues identified were the design of the commercial/residential mixed-use building; the design of the 43 foot high tower element; and the appropriateness and adequacy of the parking being proposed. Consultant Planner Woltering then reviewed the staff recommendations that are contained within the staff report.

Consultant Planner Woltering directed attention to recommended condition of approval # 7 that requires the widening of Ross Street to thirty-six (36) feet to accommodate a twenty foot wide access with parking on both sides of the street; or, eliminate parking on one side of the street. Consultant Planner Woltering stated that the condition was added at the recommendation of both the Rancho Adobe Fire Protection District and the City Engineer. However, staff is recommending that the condition be modified to allow a thirty (30) foot street width with parking on both sides consistent with current City policy.

Regarding condition #8 that requires a "hammerhead" emergency vehicle turn-around, staff supports the Fire District's recommendation although the hammerhead may result in the loss of parking spaces.

Concerning conditions #16 and #17 regarding the design of the mixed-use commercial/residential building and the tower element, Consultant Planner Woltering suggested that the Planning Commission consider and possibly amend these conditions based on their own recommendations.

In response to questions from the Planning Commission, Director of Planning Dorch verified that there are a total of 45 parking spaces on-site and 30 parking spaces off-site, for a total of 75. However, 2 or 3 of the on-site spaces could be lost due to the hammerhead turn-around.

Mr. Woltering added that the trash enclosure relocation will be something that can be worked out at staff level in cooperation with the trash hauler.

Commissioner McClelland asked about the requested financial assistance for the affordable housing. Director of Planning Dorch replied that there are financial issues that will be decided at the City Council level but that there is no need for the Planning Commission to address them..

In response to an inquiry from Commissioner Mulligan, Consultant Planner Woltering said that to insure shared on-site parking spaces there would most likely be a written, recorded agreement between the commercial businesses and the residences, as well as signage on the site.

Also in response to an inquiry from Commissioner Mulligan, Consultant Planner Woltering said that there would be an opportunity for a live/work situation in the mixed-use building, but live/work is not a requirement of this development.

Vice Chairman Pagnusat opened the PUBLIC HEARING at 7:35 p.m.

Leslie Warren, represented the Cohousing Group. She stated that they hope to break ground in the Fall. She introduced Katie McCamant, the project manager, and Chuck Durrett, the project architect.

Chuck Durrett, the project architect, presented a slide show of other cohousing projects and had a model of the typical residential building.

Concerning condition #8 that requires a hammerhead turn-around, Mr. Durrett said that he intends to discuss the condition with the Fire District, and would, therefore, appreciate the condition being amended to require compliance with the Fire District requirements.

Concerning the design of the mixed-use commercial/residential building, Mr. Durrett discussed the need for commercial buildings to have as much visibility as possible without interruption and that is why the flat façade is proposed. He said that he proposes the flat façade with high quality detailing. He showed slides of commercial buildings that have set back store fronts significantly reducing visibility.

Regarding the tower and roof elements, Mr. Durrett showed slides to illustrate the proposed tahoe blue metal material. He described changes to the tower based on the recommendations of the Design Review Committee. When the blue metal has been used for other projects, they have never received a complaint about reflection. He stated that he is very much opposed to using stucco on the tower element as it is a very suburban solution in his opinion.

Katie McCamant, the Project Manager, stated that she is confident that the number of parking spaces proposed will meet the needs of the residents. The thirteen spaces for the commercial use meets current Code requirements. The diagonal parking along Old Redwood Highway continues the existing diagonal parking downtown. Ms. McCamant stated that they will be able to work out the details of the bus stop and trash enclosure relocations, as well as a loading zone.

Concerning the width of Ross Street, Ms. McCamant noted that the 30 foot street width has already been approved and is being constructed at the Park Meadows Subdivision.

Ms. McCamant discussed the roof overhang that lowers the profile of the commercial building and shades the residences. She confirmed that they would eventually want to install solar panels on the roof of the mixed-use building, and also a rainwater collection system. However, she expressed an understanding that these issues would need to return to the Planning Commission.

Mr. Durrett, in response to an inquiry from Vice Chairman Pagnusat, said that the cost to break up the roof line and the façade of the building would be considerable. Also, breaking up the roof line would interfere with placement of future solar panels.

Commissioner McClelland inquired as to how varying the eave line on the commercial building would interfere with the installation of solar panels later. Mr. Durrett responded that it had to do with exposed pipes and a potential for fewer panels.

Bill Griffith

18 Page Street, identified himself as a sheet metal contractor. He expressed concerns about inadequate parking that could ultimately affect his neighborhood. He also expressed a concern about the massive roof on the commercial building and recommended that it be broken up to reduce the visual impact. The tower element he found to be offensive and expressed the opinion that it looked like a feed mill. He recommended that the height of the tower be lowered. He further stated his opinion that breaking up the roof line would help to make the building blend in better with the existing downtown.

Louis Callas

67 Benson Lane, stated his opinion that this is a good project. He was concerned with the tower, however, and suggested that it be lowered in height. The sheet metal siding, in his opinion, would cause the tower to look like a grain elevator. He suggested that perhaps the roof line could be varied with the use of different colors.

Paul Foti

7881 Old Redwood Highway, stated his opinion that this is a good project and liked that it is family oriented. He suggested, however, that there should be a provision for a rear access to the commercial building, possibly including a rear hallway, for deliveries. The commercial parking should be provided at a ratio of 1:250 s.f. and that on-site employee parking spaces be designated. He suggested lowering the height of the tower and perhaps adding another tower in the middle of the building. The addition of a second tower would break up the roof line and possibly provide another apartment. He also supported a mechanism to discourage project residents from parking in the front Old Redwood Highway spaces.

Heidi Hydusik

Lakewood Avenue, said that she had attended the Design Review Committee meeting and confirmed that they did not recommend off-setting the commercial building. She discussed recommendations made during the Walkable Cotati workshops for flush storefronts. She also discussed her own personal experiences in sales and the importance of visibility. She recommended approval of the plan as proposed including the use of metal on the tower. The use of metal, in her opinion, is more ecological than using wood; and, stucco cracks.

Joseph Tirone

14 Page Street, encouraged breaking up the roof line and lowering the height of the tower. He expressed concerns about increased traffic because traffic is already a problem in the area. For the record, he said that he likes the view of the mountains.

Richard (last name inaudible), identified himself as a part of the Cohousing Group. He discussed the necessity for affordable housing and said that if the commercial building gets too expensive, they could lose residential units. He expressed confidence that they will be able to work with the Fire District on the hammerhead issue. He also said that he understands the necessity for keeping the commercial spaces flush so that they are viable. He stated further that off-setting the roof will make it harder to catch rain water. Also, with regard to rainwater collection there would be toxic issues related to the use of a comp shingle roof.

Aris Weaver identified herself as a part of the Cohousing Group. She said that the project design is the result of several meetings and reaching consensus. She also said that she was skeptical about the metal roof at first, but now believes it will be beautiful. She pointed out that the entire width of the commercial building will not be visible from any point. The tower element was included in response to the City and they were attempting to find a way to make it useful. If the height of the tower is lowered, it wouldn't be a tower anymore.

John Moore

12 Kingston Lane, stated his opinion that this is a good project, but that the commercial building looks like a warehouse. He predicted that the view from his home will be of a massive roof. He questioned the placement of solar panels on a west-facing roof. He also noted that the cost of a project is not a factor in the Planning Commission's decision. Anything to break up the commercial building, he said, would help. Concerning the tower element, he said that the gateway plan recommends 20-30 foot towers to demarcate entry to the City. Increased traffic and parking in the area were identified as concerns. He also sought assurance that there would be a pedestrian crosswalk across Old Redwood Highway. In summary, Mr. Moore said that the project is good but that some efforts could be made to make it beautiful.

Female Speaker (name inaudible)

99 Page Street, suggested the use of dormers to break up the roof line and the addition of bay windows to the storefronts. She expressed concerns about the height of the tower element and use of metal siding. It was her opinion that metal siding would be more suitable to an industrial building and that it does not fit downtown Cotati. She suggested consideration be given to using stucco on the tower.

Anne Wallace-Rock

35 Page Street, referred to her letter dated June 28, 2001, that outlines her comments supporting the concept of the project while expressing specific concerns related to it. The letter was included in the Planning Commission packet. In addition to those comments, she agreed that paint, trim, etc. can help to diversify the commercial fronts. She commented further that although the Craftsman architectural style is encouraged in Cotati, there are no Craftsman features evident in the plan and she would recommend that some be added.

Prue Draper

W. School Street, stated her opinion that this is a good project and that the community needs commercial development. Concerning the on-site parking area, she stated support for the use of gravel reasoning that gravel creates noise from approaching vehicles and increases safety for children.

Director of Planning Dorch said that the Municipal Code allows the Planning Director to make the decision concerning treatment of the on-site parking area. The Planning Commission will not be making that decision. He requested that the architect supply him with copies of studies, etc., that support the use of gravel and he will give them consideration.

Vice Chairman Pagnusat closed the PUBLIC HEARING at 9:02 p.m.

BRIEF RECESS

RECONVENE at 9:10 p.m.

Commissioner McClelland stated her belief that the hammerhead issue can be worked out with the Fire District. She noted that the scale model of the residential buildings show a varied eave line and wondered whether or not these buildings were designed for future solar panels and rain collection.

Concerning the tower element, Commissioner McClelland was inclined to agree with the perspective identified as "C" that shows a shorter tower with metal applied only at the highest point, not adjacent to the street. It was further her opinion that the use of metal on the roof could be acceptable with a matte, non-reflective, finish and a lower pitch to reduce visibility.

Commissioner Dutra stated his opinion that the roof of the commercial building is really big and did not agree that future solar panels or rain collection would necessitate the mass. He also pointed out that solar panels on a southwest facing roof would necessitate raising the panels. He suggested that he would be willing to send the roof design back to the Design Review Committee. Although there was not a consensus to send the roof design back to the Design Review Committee, there was a consensus that something needs to be done to reduce the impact of the roof.

Concerning the façade of the commercial units, Commissioner Dutra suggested that perhaps the first floor could remain flush and be stepped back one foot so that the upper floor cantilever over it. He said that he would not approve one flat façade for the building, but could approve a flat façade at the ground level only.

Commissioner McClelland agreed and also stated the opinion that the architecture of the building should stand on its own and not rely on trees for screening.

Director of Planning Dorch suggested that the Planning Commission may want to consider a joint meeting with the Design Review Committee to brainstorm on the commercial building and the tower.

Applicant Katie McCamant disputed this recommendation stating that the Design Review Committee has already reviewed this project twice.

Director of Planning Dorch explained that the City Council will have the final decision-making authority on this project, however, the Planning Commission has authorization to approve the design. The Design Review Committee is a subcommittee of the Planning Commission, and because there has not seemed to be a lot of flexibility on the part of the applicant, a joint meeting between the Planning Commission and the Design Review Committee could be useful.

Director of Planning Dorch said that other options would be for the Planning Commission to forward the project to the City Council with their concerns about the design identified; or,

The Planning Commission could continue the application to the next meeting and require that the applicant present modified plans.

Architect Chuck Durrett requested that the Planning Commission forward the project to the City Council with specific recommendations. He stated a willingness to work with those recommendations in the meantime while also trying to keep the project feasible.

In response to a concern from Commissioner Mulligan about the reduced parking, Consultant Planner Woltering said that the Design Review Committee has accepted the parking as adequate and in compliance with the specific plan. Because of the proximity of the units to downtown, bus routes, other forms of transportation, and the concept of cohousing, staff concurs and supports the rationale.

In further discussion, the Planning Commission reached a consensus to recommend that City Council establish a time limit for parking in Old Redwood Highway spaces to discourage tenants from using the spaces for long-term parking.

Concerning the hammerhead requirement, Commissioner Dutra agreed that the issue could be worked out directly with the Fire District, although he would prefer not to lose parking spaces.

The Planning Commission continued to discuss the project. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to request that the applicant submit revised drawings and that the matter be continued to the next regular meeting on July 16, 2001, at 6:00 p.m. with the following recommendations:

Parking - Planning Commission accepted the reduced number of parking spaces being proposed, with 10 to 12 on-site spaces designated for commercial use (employees, etc.). Whether or not these spaces were to be established by agreement or posted with signs was not specified. Also, the Planning Commission agreed by consensus to recommend to City Council that the diagonal parking spaces along Old Redwood Highway be posted for limited term parking (2 hour) to discourage residents of the project from parking their cars there. It was important to the Planning Commission that appropriate provision for delivery truck parking be provided.

Ross Street Width - It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that Ross Street be constructed at a 30-foot width with parking on both sides of the street.

Treatment of On-Site Parking Area - It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that they would be receptive to crushed rock for the on-site parking.

Design of Commercial/Residential Mixed-Use Building - It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the design of the Commercial/Residential Mixed-Use Building be revised so that the ground floor level be set back one foot from the property line. The ground floor façade could be without offsets, but each storefront is to be provided with a different architectural treatment to emphasize individuality. In addition to the architectural treatment suggested by the Design Review Committee, the Planning Commission also suggested varied materials (i.e., brick, board and batten, etc.) in addition to brackets and varied awnings. The upper floors of the Commercial/Residential Mixed-Use Building would then cantilever over the ground floor. The upper floors are then to be offset, alternating every two units (as generally depicted in the alternative perspective D presented at the Design review Committee meeting). This treatment, in the opinion of the Planning Commission, will help to break up the roof line and also to lessen its visibility by changing the roof pitch so that the view will be more wall and less roof. The roof material can remain as proposed.

Tower Element - There were varied opinions on the treatment of the tower element. However, the architect for the project requested specific direction. The Planning Commission reached a consensus that the tower element retain the stucco base element (plinth) and that the remainder of the exterior elevations be treated with wood.

Vice Chairman Pagnusat adjourned the meeting at 10:23 p.m.

Submitted by:

Kathleen Brisbine

Administrative Secretary