All right. Hello and welcome to our Wednesday, July 17th Design Review Commission Meeting.
Let's start with a welcome and roll call, please. Thank you, Chair. Chair Case? Here. Vice Chair
Newsom? I am here. Commissioner Weingarten? Here. Let it be for the record, Commissioners
Velia and Killian have submitted their resignations and are no longer design review commissioners.
So we have a quorum. Okay thank you. Item number two is consent calendar so this is anything that
may be placed by the commission secretary when an item is expected to be routinely approved without
discussion or debate. No recommended consent items. Okay public communications so this is reserved for
comment for items not on the agenda. Anyone looking to make public comments for items not on the agenda?
Seeing none.
All right.
So at this point we will move to our item four.
We have up first a study session for the Chaudry New Single Family Residence.
Is there a staff presentation for this one?
Yes, there is.
Great.
Thank you.
So good evening commissioners.
Tonight we're here for a study session to review an application for a new single family
home at 2109 Overlook.
Overlook, I just need to get the click.
Sorry about that.
So a project with a very similarly designed
single family home was entitled in 2007, 2008,
but those plans have since expired in those entitlements.
And so tonight is the study session
for a recommendation to the Planning Commission
on the Design Review and the Conditional Use Permit.
So the project includes development of a vacant lot
with a two-story single family home
with one two-car garage and one one-car garage,
as well as new landscaping throughout the site.
As part of the project, four trees are proposed
for removal, and those are Siberian elms,
and that has been approved for removal
with the city arborist.
The site is zoned M3,
which is a multiple-family zoning district
and requires a conditional use permit
for development of a single-family home.
The site is designated as multi-family low
in the general plan.
And this designation is intended to serve as a transition
between single family neighborhoods
and commercial or higher density residential areas.
So the existing surrounding area consists of single family
and some lower density multifamily residential units.
The law is substandard for the M3 zoning district's
minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet.
The gross lot area is 7,000 square feet.
there is a 20-foot wide access easement
that spans across the lot and that reduces the lot area
to a net lot area of around 5,233 square feet.
The site is also slightly sloped.
As part of the review, staff is asking
the Design Review Commission to provide feedback
on the parking and access as currently proposed.
There is a 10-foot distance between the edge
of the access easement and the garage doors.
Staff is considering requiring a condition of approval
to prohibit parking on that 10 foot driveway area,
but would like the DRC to opine on that.
So the design consists of primarily pure white color
for the stucco and lap siding areas
with a dark gray for all trim and fascia elements.
So you'll see the front of the building
that is the side facing St. John's Court,
and that's adjacent to that access easement.
This is the elevation facing overlook drive
and throughout the building you'll see elements
that are proposed to reduce that perceived bulk.
The first story is slightly smaller
or the second story is slightly smaller
than the first story.
And so this is the elevation facing 2115
and 2119 overlook.
Again, that second story is slightly smaller
and this is the rear elevation
and that does include a second-story deck.
So for the landscape, the site is proposed
to be landscaped throughout
with a variety of shrubs and trees,
including California fescue shrubs and black oak trees.
Again, there is those four elm trees proposed for removal,
and obviously there is no landscaping proposed
within that access easement.
So in regards to CEQA, the project is utilizing
the new construction or conversion
of small structures exemption,
which is allowed for projects that consist
of one single family home in residential zones.
So staff is asking the Design Review Commission
to provide comments to the Planning Commission
for consideration on the conditional use permit
and the design review,
specifically regarding the CEQA exemption,
site layout, building design, vehicle access and parking,
landscaping, colors, and materials.
So I'm available for any questions you might have
and the applicant is here as well to speak.
Thank you.
Do we have any questions of staff from our commissioners?
Yes.
Could you talk a little bit more about the parking,
what we're being asked to consider there?
Yeah, so let me just go.
Well, you can probably see it on that one, sorry.
Because of the lot constraints, it's so small,
you can see the edge of the access easement, that orange,
There's only 10 feet from the edge of the access easement
to the wall of the garage.
And so, you know, these plans have been around since 2018.
It's a Y18.
And at that time, we were considering putting a condition
that basically said you can't park on the driveway
because your car's gonna be too long
and it's gonna impede the access easement.
So we just want your feedback on
whether you think that's a good route
or if there's something else you'd wanna consider.
Makes sense.
And then the access easement is for,
not very clear in the application,
but it's for a property to the left on that drawing, right?
Yeah, it's for those two properties behind the property.
So my question's for you, thanks.
Yeah, no problem.
Any other questions?
I have a question.
When there's trash pickup,
does the trash go down this driveway
or does it pick up on Overlook Drive?
I don't know specifically, my assumption is overlooked,
but that's just an assumption.
I think even in this picture,
I see some of the bins on the cul-de-sac.
Oh, on St. John's, yeah.
Okay, I just asked,
cause I was trying to think about the overhanging car
and where that can make issues.
Okay, okay.
Is there a presentation from the applicant as well or just?
There's a few questions, there's no presentation.
Okay, so do we have any questions of the applicant
any chance? If I can if I may we would typically not allow any cars to be in
parked in a portion of or a whole car parked in that easement at all typically
so it's parking your garage or halfway in your garage somewhere on site but
off the easement. How is that enforced? Is it like kind of self-enforcing okay I
I mean, it's the folks behind them that have the easement.
Okay.
Is the applicant here?
Can I ask a question?
Is that a concern if we make it a no parking opportunity?
You have to come to the podium and state your name.
Yeah, please step up.
My name is Tahid, I represent the owner.
He's also my cousin.
So this law has been very challenging
in terms of development.
He's had it for over two decades,
But we initially tried to do a duplex and we couldn't meet the setback requirements.
So then we said, okay, well, let's try a single-family home, and that application went through and
we actually got approved in 2007, I believe.
One of the challenges is the easement, and that's what pushes the house back so far.
So to mitigate that, we put more garage space.
And I think that solves the parking problem.
OK, so you do feel like it can be functional
if we go forward with the no parking in the driveway?
Well, I mean, I don't like it.
It's not ideal.
Yeah.
Right.
But you've thought of it as a constraint
and designed to accommodate it.
Yeah, so we designed it.
Right.
OK.
So I'd rather you not.
Sure, I hear you.
I mean, oftentimes you might wanna wash your car
or something like that, but.
So, I think a constraint like maybe overnight parking
rather than just no parking at all would be palatable.
Okay, any other questions?
Well, yeah, I guess, hi.
Could you just talk a little bit about
what you wanna accomplish with this house?
Like, what are you designing for?
I'm not quite sure I understand the question.
Well, is it for rental property or?
Well, he's getting older, and it's just him and his wife,
and they had a house in San Francisco they sold,
and so they're thinking about moving back to Walnut Creek,
or the Bay Area.
Right now they work in, or I'm sorry,
they live in Sacramento.
Yeah, I mean, I ask because I think that what we're,
what we're being asked to do is advise
from a design point of view.
And I think it's important to maybe to help us
to understand how you intend to use the house that might inform
some of the feedback.
And if you plan on living there, I
guess I would ask that it's such a constrained site,
and you're devoting so much built area to cars.
Did you look at schemes with only a two-car garage?
I mean three cars seems like a lot for a single family house, given the size of this house.
We had five different designs that were considered.
We'd rather make it a duplex so they could have some rental income and live in one part
of it, but it doesn't work out size-wise.
Even with the new laws regarding ADUs?
We tried.
Tried that too?
could attest to so many different types of designs to get a duplex in. It just doesn't work.
Unless you make a recommendation that we don't have to abide by the setback requirements,
we're fine, then we can go back to the drawing board and put a duplex back in.
I don't know that that's within our review. I mean, if you came back and asked for that,
that could be something we could react to, but we can't design it for you.
No, no, no, I'm not saying that, but if you allow us not to abide by the setback requirements,
meaning if you say, hey, you don't have to have 20 feet from the front, from overlook to the wall,
then we can kind of make it more rectangle. But this is the best after years and years of going
back and forth that we've come up with that meets at least most all the setback requirements.
Do you does it say how big the house is I know I see the lot area, but
And that's including the garages
Good question, yeah, I think so
so yeah, that is
That is that is a big house for two parking spaces for sure. I mean it
it's
Clearly it's designed for more than two people
It would inevitably have more than two people with cars living there
That's a comment not a question. Okay, come back to that
People like big spaces, yeah. Yeah, I mean that's what everybody wants
No, it just comes at a at a cost-benefit analysis, right?
How much impact is there to the attractiveness and the livability of the house?
You're taking a perimeter which could otherwise be daylit space inside to park cars
you're limited in footprint and you know it it just seems like a missed
opportunity to to get more perimeter access and why they're not consolidated
maybe even because the way that through the garage are now they're sort of
boxing in the main living space.
Yeah.
Yeah.
We can take the third car out and.
Thank you.
Maybe rearrange it.
Well, the beauty of this is it's a study session.
You know, so we don't have to solve anything
in this moment.
But we can do that.
Yeah, but I don't want to go back
to the drawing board either.
We've done that.
It's been 17 years.
I mean, I just want to move forward.
and I think he's at his kind of tolerance as well
as we've gone through this process,
we've done studies, we've done progress studies,
we've anointed studies, anything that the city has asked for
he's accomplished and we're right now
towards the finish line
and I just don't wanna go back to square one again.
If you think this is our idea of not parking
in the driveway is park right in the garage
and there's ample space now.
Well, I mean, to your point, Commissioner Casey,
you're here because you'd like,
I presumably you'd like to have some feedback from us.
If you're saying you don't,
then I'm happy to not waste my time
if that's what you wanna do.
We're trying to help.
Oh, I thought this was more of a procedural thing
before we get to approval.
Can we get clarification for the applicant
on what we're doing here?
Yeah, the the project requires design review and the design review Commission in this case will make only
Recommendations to the Planning Commission for and the Planning Commission will consider the design review with the use permit
Based on the recommendations from the Design Review Commission. I
You know, I you know, I I would like to help but I have a couple questions. So I I noticed do you have
An architect working with you on this or is it? Oh you do and so when you've gone through these design iterations
It's with a design. It's with an architect. Correct. Okay
Any other questions for the applicant?
Yeah, cuz it's gonna lead to one of my comments, I mean
You've I think he said this. I mean
Would you be willing to subtract a garage in favor of open parking?
That's something you would consider
Because the I think the issue is this is
Here's the way we all may have have houses, right? So
Garages are often not garages garages are often
Work out places offices other things and the moment that happens with this house
These folks are going to be parking in the right-of-way
And that's not allowed
Regardless of what we would say or whatever here
The fire department will come and they'll tell you to go move it somewhere else and then you can be parking it down the street
you're not gonna make friends with your neighbors either, so
That would be something I would I would question whether you might consider
any other questions
May I?
respond yeah
If we just follow your line of thought if
Instead of the not the two-car garage, but the single-car garage make it open space
Still build on top of it. Would that help?
Did you mean did you mean eliminate a garage number the small garage for living space?
Yeah, so so so you know the issue is this is
really in
This is the case in many cities. You need to have two
Parking spaces in garage and this is the case in Oakland for instance
There's two in the garage and there's two on the property outside
So that ensures that if you have guests, they're not going to be parking in the right away. So
So however you accomplish that
That's that that might be my suggestion. I don't know what that would mean in terms
It's not like I said, it's not our design art our job to design right? That's your job. So
But I mean that that may that may
the subtraction
sometimes subtraction and design actually makes things better and I think
Things are so crowded here. It it kind of forces your hand, right?
You certain point it drives everything else and in this case
and I think
This is this is one of the problems I have is that
When you even when when you look at it in plan when you look at it in an elevation
all you see are garages right you don't it doesn't look like a residence at the
end it basically almost looks like a garage as opposed to a house and you
can't even walk up to the house I mean the landscape plan indicates you have
landscaping in front but then you also have another sheets you have a buyer
retention so you can't even walk up people have to walk around so it's a
Yeah, again, I'm trying to make my comments available to you so it helps you, not hinders
you, but maybe I should just go for it, I don't know, but when you have a constrained
lot and you have split garages, you're also having split asphalt, you're adding more hardscape,
less landscape.
You know, anything you could do to mitigate
the lifeless space of a garage
and its associated apron of asphalt
will only help to make it a better house
and a better experience for whoever lives there
and probably for the community
because you're taking up all that precious land
with the configuration you have.
Even if it were a three-car garage
as opposed to a two and a one,
You could make an argument that you're just
pushing all that stuff deep in and it's like,
and you'd have the whole front two thirds of the site
then did landscape, you know?
I'm not following.
So are you saying to eliminate the square footage?
What I'm saying is the-
The increased landscaping?
The configuration, right?
We have a two-car garage and a one-car garage.
And then associated with that, you have to get into it.
So you have driveway, right?
So you're taking up a lot of footprint
for hardscape, meaning the paved area for the car
to get in, and the garages.
You could just push all those things together
and have a single vehicular moment
and the whole rest of the site,
instead of having two separate driveways,
one primary driveway and the rest is all landscape.
And then, you know, again, I think on the ground floor,
you know, if it were my house, I mean,
I think that it's problematic to come in
through a bioswale to a porch, you know,
with garages and trash on either side,
doesn't feel very welcoming.
And the space between the garages
only gets light from the front and back, right?
So that's less desirable than having light on three sides.
So being as we're in questions, he's saying,
could you consider this design alternative he's discussing?
So push the garages to one side.
I think it loses the balance of the house,
especially if it's articulating.
I mean, that's just my opinion,
but if you push all the garages to one side,
yeah, it creates just one driveway
or one access to the garages,
but I think it'll look funky
as you just have this porch.
Any other clarifying questions?
Because we will have a chance for comments
because we're not reviewing or...
So let's talk.
We're moving on the comments here.
Well, okay, do you, okay, so how do we talk
about the facades and stuff, like the materials?
Is that a just comment?
We will have an opportunity for comments,
which with our new system are being captured
and relayed to planning, so they may have the opportunity
to say these changes have to be made or not,
was my impression.
I'm new, so I'm still learning procedure.
We're still asking questions, we're gonna open it
to the public to see if they have a question.
and then we're gonna give comments.
Correct.
I jumped the gun, and my apologies.
No, that's okay.
We accidentally do that a lot.
That's why we play Jeopardy.
So any other questions?
I mean, we can move the bios, well.
We'll get there.
Okay.
That's helpful.
Thank you.
Okay, so at this point,
I will open it up for public comment.
Is there anyone from the public
who would like to comment on this project?
Okay, seeing none, we'll close the public comment,
and now we provide our comments
our lovely secretary to take notes can I can I start with one comment first
comment is I I don't recommend that we allow parking in the apron I think that
that should be a condition of approval that was suggested by staff do you have
any comments on the materials the architecture yeah that's well I I concur
that we have a recommendation that says
that the garages should be consolidated or removed.
So, frankly, I don't care just one mass
of garages on one side.
I mean, that would be something that I would suggest.
The next thing is about the bioswales.
Well, the bioswales are not worked out
because if you look at the bioswales on this plan
and then you look at the landscape plan,
Casey, you can respond, but I don't think you can plant
the plants they have proposed in bioswales.
So I actually had a similar comment,
I'm just gonna take over for a second.
So on sheet A1.03, it does show the bioswales
consuming the whole area between the driveways
and it doesn't show the connection to the front door,
which I think is what you're articulating.
Yeah, that's what I'm trying to say better.
It doesn't align with the landscape plan.
So that's just a little clarification we would need.
And I was gonna opine a little bit on the bioswales,
if they're really sunken,
we've all talked about this before,
like out at the orchards,
it's difficult to have that next to a walkway.
It's a little different if it's your home,
but still it's not as visually appealing.
So maybe reevaluating where the bioswales occur
isn't a bad idea and just making sure
the plants are suitable.
And while we're in the bioswale talks,
Again, the ones that are shown on A1.03
are not totally aligned with what's shown
on the landscape plan, which is she, what sheet is this?
I don't know, I gotta, I'll tell you that in a second
because it's showing step stones and things going through it.
And I think typically those bioswales aren't really usable.
And I would love, this is my comment,
if on sheet L2 that front little bit by Overlook Drive
did feel kind of usable.
So I like that there's some lawn
and there's some planting buffer, I think that's nice.
It's making it feel like it has a front yard.
So as long as that bioswale actually works,
I think it's cool that there's a little space there for that.
One thing to consider is where you pave,
use permabilled pavement and actually do
a bioretention under the driveway.
There's so little space here for a yard
that that would be a way,
a trick you could use to get more yard.
permeable pavers you know you got to dig down underneath a bit do a fair amount of gravel but
a lot of people now in tight these tight situations they're they're actually having
the bioretention right underneath the driveway so then you can do whatever you want you can have a
lawn or some maybe not a lawn maybe turf something yeah that's it just it needs when it's brought
the brought back it just needs to be coordinated.
Do you want to keep rolling
with the landscape architect come back to you?
No, I can keep doing some of the landscape stuff.
So I do think you mentioned trying to disregard
some of the setbacks and I feel like it's already
really quite narrow, right?
So there's not a lot of usable landscape space.
So I think the way you're putting in step zones is nice.
It's giving a little bit of movement throughout the space.
I don't mind the plant selection.
I do feel like the driveways kind of chop up
that arrival a little bit.
So my suggestion, if those remain,
was to maybe really design the frontage on overlook
to be more of the wow moment,
like the arrival of the home,
make it feel like it's the front yard.
Those are my landscape comments.
I'm really building comments to you too.
Yeah, so I'll start.
I know Peter has a lot, but we talked a bit.
So first, I'll start with the positive.
I mean, I think that the idea of stepping the building
is a good idea.
You have a two-story mass,
it's good to have it broken up in that way.
I think there may be too many moves here
for a building of this size though.
I think I would recommend a few things.
I'd recommend that first off on the color.
I know the color's white, white is a very,
It's a timeless color and it's very popular right now.
But I think in this case, being right next to the freeway,
I'd recommend you consider something that deals
with the dirt and the smog and everything
a little bit better.
I think it also might benefit with having
like a bi-color scheme just to kind of break up
that elevation a little bit more.
And that could be done with materials
or you could just use one color below, one color higher,
just a base color, lighter color above,
that might change things.
I think, in terms of the style of the building,
style is so, it's so much in the eye of the beholder,
but I think, this was designed how long ago,
almost 20 years ago.
It looks like that, it looks like a building at that time.
And I think now, with houses, even houses that are built like this in a more traditional
way, they're more of a transitional style.
They're less, you know, there's less fussiness with the arches and so forth.
I think simplification would be good.
I think that if so much of the front of the garage is garage door, they better be very
nice garage doors.
it better be like something that's wood with windows on them,
either that or make them blank out and go away.
The roofs could be simplified.
I think a building like this,
not a lot of discussion about the windows.
One thing that really helps is detailing
the windows very well,
and not with a lot of stucco false work,
just pushing them back, adding some details
so it looks more traditional would help as well.
Just making sure they're pushed in about two inches,
you know, something like that.
Some detail around the windows.
Looking at the details of the eaves,
making sure that there's a substantial detail there.
But again, maybe subtracting some things.
So like looking at the back of the building,
that's the upper left-hand corner.
You have that roof that goes through.
I think that's a move too many.
I don't think anybody looks back there.
You can make that change in color
and it'd be better to take whatever money
you're spending back there to create that roof
and apply it with more finishes
and better finishes on the south side,
and basically the two public sides that people see.
Those are my thoughts.
Yeah, I mean, it's an interesting design problem.
You know, you have a small lot,
you're adjacent to the freeway.
You know, I think there has to be a dialogue
around how you solve wanting to bring transparency
and light to the living quarters inside and mitigate traffic noise, solar exposure.
Like these are some, these are at odds, right?
And we're in those differences or odds.
You can really find some interesting creative solutions to those problems.
The, the, the, our apertures of the windows are so small and they just feel so claustrophobic to me.
And it could be a valid approach to say, I don't, you know, in some cases,
I'm not going to say that's the case here, you could say, well, the external environment
is too harsh and I really don't, I want to make an internal world and that's fine.
Yeah, well, you know, and, but even in that, I think there are more creative ways to address
if you really wanted to create an internalized world within the house and even with double
height spaces and more volume and, but from an exterior point of view, the way the garages
are on either side hemming in, as I mentioned before, the ability to have a corner of light
into the main living space. Again, that's where the design teams have to really understand
the issues at hand and how to resolve them. And I agree in the back, you have a back that faces
north-ish, you know, it's going to be darker and with those tiny windows. And I know then you have
the issue of, well, I'm right up against the fence line and I've got neighbors. I don't want to have
them see in or me see them. So again, that's an opportunity for creativity. How can you adequately
provide light but screening? And maybe it's more clear story lighting as opposed to, you know,
so you get the benefit at least of looking above and seeing the sky and not necessarily you know
at high height looking out to your neighbors. I don't know. But I think you could definitely
design the back as was mentioned differently than the front and it just yeah it just with so much
going on and it just feels it's not it doesn't seem like an elegant design process in terms
of mediating all of the things that the issues that you may be thinking about privacy, transparency,
daylight, solar orientation, parking, the noise from the traffic, you know, all these things.
And I, you know, I think this is like I said, there's a lot of architects that would find
this to be a very challenging, but yet a creative outlet to do something, you know,
as far as the color, you know, yeah, I don't know. I mean, I think our mandate here is to make sure
that it fits contextually into the community. So I haven't seen a survey of what the neighborhood
looks like other than what I personally researched on Google. And I mean, there's some white buildings
there, I guess, you know, but color colors change, people paint their houses, right? You know, I think
structurally, does the house with its Pittsburgh's and its Mansard's and things, you know, fit in,
I can't say it doesn't, you know, but, you know, details matter. So I'm, I don't feel
like I have much sway over that issue of contextuality, and it's really up to you
to just do a great building. And, you know, I think some of the comments we've
made today would make it a better building, but, you know, again, this is
just free advice. So if we try to shape that into like a bulleted list because I
think there are a lot of compatible comments there I mean I think I would
agree with what you say about the windows I think I think the windows are
important I mean obviously we don't have to live there we don't have to sell this
house or rent it out or whatever but I think whoever the occupants are are
gonna appreciate the windows I sense is the fact that Bart's there but as soon as
you have a window, always is gonna go through the window
and you have to mitigate that with maybe a better window.
But I mean, this is the front of the building.
So if this front of the building,
I don't even know how the plan works at well.
Yeah, I mean, you have one side has a bathroom,
but the other one is a bedroom.
And looking from the inside out,
those are kind of odd shapes.
It would be better to have more regular.
I mean, I think where I'm coming from
is there's just too many pieces and there's too many moves.
Like even if you were to take one of those gables away,
if you were to consolidate the roofs,
consolidate, then you would have more space on the front
to develop the windows and simplify the architecture a bit.
Yeah, I mean, when you split the garages, right?
It's almost like you're saying
this is a house for two families.
And I mean, that was my impression.
and what you said where they'd like it to be a duplex,
it's not our job to figure out how they use it,
but I mean, certainly that would be one way
they might look at it is that if they have two garages,
then they could rent a portion of the house,
maybe the upstairs, it's not,
I'm not the design, the planning police,
but that may be what you're thinking,
but at the same time,
if you're asking for a single family house,
not a duplex, it better look like a house, right?
So for consolidated notes, this is what I heard, I also don't approve of the idea of parking in
the driveway when it's only 10 feet. I think that's a barrier for the neighbors and a pain.
I do think for like car washing, doing it for a half an hour is one thing, but especially since
it's kind of self-regulated. There was a comment to consider aligning the bioswale is a little
better with the usability of the yards and the planting and a suggestion was to consider
permeable pavers, since that means it can reduce some of the bioswale needs or like
a hydromod under the driveway. I heard consider the white color if it's an issue with the proximity
to 680, maybe consider bi-color options. In general, this was my very simplified version
of what you guys said, but was simplify the architecture. Consider that so much of the
front is garage doors, consider simplification of the roofs, and then
reevaluate a site design that currently doesn't offer a corner of light into the
main living space and reevaluate windows.
I would say that, that's a good job, I would say that we'd
encourage them to provide some outdoor parking for guests, something like that,
because if you look at the way it is now they have they have plenty of parking spaces for the house, but
Any guest is gonna go just immediately go parking the right away. So
Something something like that
We captured it
Can I add to the list yes
there was some discussion about
The stucco and a lot of it and maybe consider doing something with a base with a different either at least a different color
with maybe some kind of a more material.
Did I hear that?
Color, yeah, yes.
I think a bi-color solution or bi-material solution.
Or both.
Or both, yeah.
Yeah, I mean, honestly, like I said, color,
it's more of a consideration for maybe maintenance.
It's what you're applying the color to,
if that's too complicated.
It would be a stronger design if it was less complicated
than the choice of color.
Okay, is that enough?
Notes and we're ready to close this item?
I think we have enough to write something up.
Great, okay, thank you.
So we'll move on to our next item,
which is the security public storage freeway sign,
application number Y23-084.
Do we have a staff presentation for this one?
Yes, staff has prepared a presentation.
Well, good evening, commissioners. My name is Stephen Cook. I'm an assistant planner
here with the Community Development Department. The project being presented today is a request
for a new freeway sign at 2690 North Main Street. Regarding some site context, the property
is located between North Main Street to the west and Interstate 680 to the east. Surrounded
by similar service commercial zoning districts
and aerial photo is provided for reference.
While the plan set includes a re-face
of an existing freestanding sign and installation
of a new tenant wall sign,
neither of these proposals require DRC approval.
However, approval from the DRC is necessary
for the newly proposed freeway sign.
Previously, the signed subcommittee did review the initial
project proposal, which originally included additional
signage types, such as a red LED strip light
that has since been excluded from the scope of work,
the sign subcommittee recommended approval
of the freeway sign, noting that the new design,
which is smaller in size,
represents an improvement over the existing sign.
Staff did receive correspondence from Caltrans.
As shown, the reference California Business
and Professions Code is not applicable to this project
because the proposed freeway sign is not located
within the highway right-of-way.
The current freeway sign measuring 147 square feet is currently installed at the rear of
the building facing the I-680.
As a part of this proposal, the existing freeway sign will be removed and a new 125-square-foot
freeway sign will be installed in the same location.
The proposed freeway sign features internally illuminated channel letters with a beige backing.
The freeway sign complies with the standards of the site ordinance regarding sign area
and height. However, the new freeway sign requires approval from the DRC. Staff recommends
that this project is exempt from CEQA under section 15.3.01 of the CEQA guidelines, Class
1 existing facilities. And furthermore, staff recommends the DRC to move to adopt the attached
draft resolution granting approval of public security freeway, excuse me, public security
Storage Freeway Sign Application Number Y23-084,
subject to the conditions contained therein.
That concludes staff's presentation.
Staff is available for any questions.
Additionally, the applicant is present today
and is also available for any questions.
Thank you.
Do we have any questions of staff or the applicant?
OK.
At this point, I'll open it up for public comment.
Is there anyone in the public who'd
to make a comment on this project.
Okay, then we'll take it back for our comments
and our opining on the sign.
Anyone like to start?
Go ahead.
Yeah, you got it, Bill, go.
I got nothing.
Oh, you got nothing?
Okay. Yeah.
Any comments?
Okay, so in my opinion, it's an upgrade.
I like it.
I support it.
I have no issue approving it.
Me neither.
Agreed. Great.
Okay, so I have a motion to approve
with the conditions listed in the staff report.
I will second that motion.
Roll call.
Yes, roll call, sorry.
I was like, oh, I should say with the microphone on, okay.
Chair Case?
Yes.
Vice Chair Newsom?
Yes.
Commissioner Weingarten?
Yes.
That's 3-0, that carries.
Great, thank you.
So we'll move on to our next item,
which is the 2890 North Main Street freestanding sign.
Do we have a presentation from staff?
We don't.
What we have is a request by the applicant
to continue this item
to the August 4th design review commission meeting.
Okay, do we have to do anything or we just say yes?
Well, I think we need to make a motion
to approve that continuance.
Okay, I have no issue with that continuance.
So I will make a motion to continue this item
to the August 1st, or the meeting of the first one
in August, that's ours.
August 4th, correct.
I will second it.
Okay.
Roll call, please.
Chair Case?
Yes.
Commissioner Weingarten?
Yes.
Vice Chair Newsom?
Yes.
Okay.
Motion carried, item continued to August 4th.
Okay, so we'll move on to our next item,
which is commission considerations.
And I see that we have the non-residential
design review standards and guidelines
and non-residential objective development,
also known as zoning standards.
So I believe there's a presentation for us.
Yes, hello.
All right, good evening, Chair Case
and members of the commission.
Ben Schuster with community development.
Bringing forth tonight kind of a review
and milestone update of the non-residential
Design Review Standards and Guidelines process.
Just wanted to note a couple things.
I'm kind of taking over the remainder
of this project management from Jenine Cavalli,
who's our long time senior planner,
who did such an amazing job on this
that our design consultant, Ramey and Associates, stole her.
So we're sad to see her go.
And so this is, I think, as much a celebration
of her and her work as it is this project.
So, yes, her legacy.
And so, I have with me Alessandra Lundeen
with Raymond Associates.
She'll be giving the majority of tonight's presentation.
So, our agenda tonight, again, very brief,
just a quick kind of project overview,
where we are in the process,
and then Alessandra will step in
and kind of walk through the actual document itself,
and then I'll kind of close with next steps,
and then we'll be available for any final questions.
And just to note, there's no formal action required
the Commission tonight. Again, this is really just a project milestone update and then to offer
one final opportunity for the Commission to pass along any final feedback or ask any final
questions before we move this along to the Planning Commission and then ultimately to the
City Council. All right, so let's kind of kick things off here. So the update to the 1996 Design
review guidelines was initiated back in 2018-2019, and this was in response primarily to state housing
law. However, at that time the council also took the opportunity to direct staff to further update
our non-residential design standards as well. Kind of the overall goals of updating our
outdated guidelines were to incorporate new design topics, add in kind of new modern design
guidelines and standards, incorporating recent best practices, then also holistically reformatting
the document to make it easier to use and understand. And so the actual work product
itself is two separate documents. There's the residential document and if you may recall that
That was recently adopted by the city council just last month and that is now effective
as of about two weeks ago.
And then again, the item in front of you tonight is the non-residential booklet, kind of the
corresponding piece for all of our commercial development.
And again, just want to emphasize here that unlike our residential projects, the city
retains much of its discretion in reviewing commercial projects in the city.
And so the Design Review Commission's comments and design opinions will carry a lot more
weight with the Planning Commission.
And so some of the key differences, again, between our now kind of 20-year-old guidelines
and our new documents, again, clear and objective standards across the board, greatly expanded
design topics, and then, again, much more user-friendly and lots of pictures.
And then this work really couldn't have been done without the city working group that was
formed early on, and that consisted of representatives from various departments in the city, and
I think most importantly, two of the members of this commission who were able to provide,
use their many years of design experience and really create a product, I think, that
We're all very proud of and I know Jeanine especially was very proud of the work that you all had done. So passing along a thank you from her and just a quick look at where we are in the timeline.
So that black arrow there is where we're at, which again, we're almost to the very end.
And so after tonight, they'll essentially be a meeting at the planning commission scheduled for late August and then a meeting with the city council for adoption in mid September.
Okay, and so now I'm gonna pass along to Alessandra,
and again, she's gonna kind of walk us through
some of the key highlights of the actual document itself.
Thank you, Ben.
Good evening, commissioners, good to be here.
As Ben mentioned, I'm gonna go through
some more of the details of the document itself.
Maybe I'll just put this down a little bit.
So the purpose, oh, there we go.
The purpose of the standards and guidelines
for non-residential are to enhance community character,
promote quality architectural design,
site planning and landscape development,
provide clear, or a clear set of design criteria,
and then it also addresses some special uses,
such as auto sales and rental, auto service stations
with repair or convenience markets,
drive up takeout restaurants, and shopping centers.
So on this slide, you'll see the table of contents
for the documents.
The key or the main chapters and topics
are, of course, introduction.
There is a chapter on site planning, architecture
and building design, parking, walls and fences, lighting,
and then, of course, those special uses
that I just mentioned.
And then you might remember this from the residential and mixed
use book.
It's pretty much set up in exactly the same way.
So demonstrated on the slide, you'll
see that every chapter or subsection
begins with a brief intent statement
with the overall purpose,
and then it's followed by the list
of standards and guidelines.
So again, standards are objectively written
as priority design criteria that projects must follow.
They're written with shall statements.
And then guidelines are strongly recommended
design criteria with which projects should comply.
But there is some flexibility in how projects
meet each guideline depending on unique
or differing circumstances.
And guidelines are written with should statements.
Again, as Ben mentioned, non-residential projects
are not subject to objective design requirements
per state law.
And they will go through kind of the typical
discretionary review process in the city,
whereby reviewers will evaluate the project
based on the degree with which they comply
with the standards and guidelines.
And then we also tried to build in
some flexibility with the standards.
So many of them have a menu of options.
So for example, this is just one
for special corner treatments.
And as you can see, we say, okay,
we want you to provide a special corner treatment,
choose at least two of these,
whether it be a change in fenestration pattern
or material or height or special architectural feature,
but they have that flexibility on what they choose.
So I'm now gonna go into some of the details
of what is covered under each key topic area.
So within the site design chapter,
there's access and circulation standards
such as creating smaller blocks and new connections,
minimizing curb cuts and driveways
to reduce conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles,
and creating pedestrian pathways
that connect sidewalks and streets
to transit, outdoor spaces, and parking.
Within services and utilities,
we have standards to locate utilities,
equipment and service areas to the rear
and side of buildings and to screen them.
And then within landscaping,
we have minimum size and spacing standards,
limitations on turf and stormwater management.
Within the building design chapter,
we focus on portions of the building
that are visible from the street,
the public realm and outdoor spaces.
So they include orienting buildings
towards the street and outdoor spaces,
providing weather protection and accentuating entries,
mediating the scale, massing, and bulk through building modulation,
whether that be step backs or major and minor massing breaks,
creating well-crafted human-scale details and facades through articulation,
so that could be variations in materials and textures,
window and trim elements, roof overhangs and screening devices,
and then encouraging a variety of materials and colors that add visual interest.
Within the building design chapter,
we also have standards that address the design of ground floor retail and commercial spaces.
So we held a number of stakeholder interviews with commercial and downtown business stakeholders,
and we incorporated their feedback into these standards to ensure that commercial spaces are
both leasable and contribute to a vibrant pedestrian frontage. So we have minimum
storefront transparency requirements, minimum ground floor height and depth,
weather protection for entries. There are some awning design standards for placement and high
quality materials. And there are outdoor dining standards including location and accessibility,
barriers and furniture. And then this slide highlights some of the details of the specific
feedback and revisions we made based on those stakeholder interviews. And these are for the
most part the same as the revisions that were made and adopted as part of the residential mixed use
book for ground floor commercial development. So we incorporated the minimum retail ground
floor height and depth recommended by stakeholders. So 18 feet in height, 50 foot depth. We added
a standard for minimum 30 foot spacing between columns to really maximize usable retail space.
We have a venting and grease trap requirement and that's to allow for restaurant tenants.
We now require a service corridor or similar rear access to refuse so that commercial tenants
don't have to walk along the frontage with their trash.
We also have a new standard to facilitate customer access from any rear parking areas
to retail spaces along the street.
We added a requirement for ground floor retail materials or I should say a guideline to encourage
them to be distinct from upper floors.
We made some minor modifications to the glazing requirements and then at their request we
also added landscaping as a method for accentuating building entries.
And then some of the additional topics covered in the non-resonational book include parking.
So the standards focus on locating parking to the rear inside of buildings, creating
pedestrian routes through parking areas, and screening surface and structured parking from
view.
And then there are a number of lighting standards, most around ensuring that lighting is pedestrian
scaled, using timing controls for outdoor lighting, for efficiency, and encouraging
that lighting fixtures are architecturally compatible with the building.
And then the last chapter of the non-residential design standards and guidelines covers some
of those special uses that require really specific design considerations.
So the 1996 standards and guidelines were updated and improved to add clarity, and also
to address best practices and recent development trends such as encouraging pedestrian-oriented
urban auto showrooms and limiting outdoor vehicle display areas on street frontages.
We also added or improved landscaping, fence and wall and screening standards for auto
sales and auto service stations to really minimize their impacts on the street frontage
and pedestrian experience.
And then while we were updating the special use standards and guidelines, it became apparent
that some of the design standards kind of overlapped
with some of the standards that were already
in the zoning code,
or they more appropriately belonged there.
And so you will find in your packet
some corresponding code amendments
for those special uses.
The following slide highlights some of the topics
and standards included in the document
for drive-up takeout restaurants,
such as requiring landscaping along the perimeter
and drive-up aisles, orienting the building,
building entries to the street
rather than to parking areas,
encouraging four-sided architecture,
and providing separate and distinct
vehicular and pedestrian circulation through the site
to really minimize conflicts
between vehicles and pedestrians.
And then lastly, there are a number of standards
and guidelines specific to the design of shopping centers,
including building design and articulation standards.
We have a requirement
for publicly accessible private outdoor space,
including design standards.
There are pedestrian pathway design, dimension
and material standards, limitations on curb cuts
and driveways, and street activation
by locating commercial and pad buildings
along street frontages and at corners.
And with that, I'm gonna turn it back over to Ben
to talk about next steps.
Great, thank you, Alessandra.
So again, just very briefly, next steps.
Again, this was an opportunity to get final feedback
from the community, we did not receive any public comment
prior to today's meeting.
And I don't see anyone here in the room.
And then to again, synthesize any comments
from this commission and final comments.
And then we would be able to pass those along
to the planning commission and to the city council.
Otherwise, like I mentioned earlier,
we will be going to the planning commission in August
and to the city council in September.
And so we're gonna end here
And just, again, want to reemphasize there's no formal action required tonight, but we
are looking for any last feedback, if any, kind of in these three areas relating to the
document, applicability, format, and then any sort of specific design topics or standards.
And we're also looking for sort of a positive recommendation that we can communicate to
the council as well.
And with that, we're available for questions.
Great.
Does anyone have any questions?
I'll ask one. So applicability. These are objective design standards, so the idea is
that staff can use them as a ruler to decide if something complies. But if it doesn't comply,
what's the applicant's recourse? Do they go take the planning commission, do they take
it to us? How does that work?
So I think unlike with the residential developments where there's a little bit more strict, right,
either comply or you don't in terms of getting your objective design review approved. If you
recall the framing is the degree to which the project meets the intent of the non-residential
standards and guidelines. So there is, I think, the key word is discretion, right, by whoever the
reviewing body is in determining does this comply or not. I think how we like how we do today with
with projects, right, if there is a kind of wide gap
between what the staff or this body
or the Planning Commission is telling the applicant
in terms of this is our comfort level
in approving a discretionary entitlement
and the applicant is not willing to redesign the project,
then assuming they insist on processing the project,
presumably that would result in a denial of the project
and then the applicant if they disagree
with that outcome can appeal.
So it's how we treat any sort of design review.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I mean, I think in-
If I may, this might also be a good chance
because those commercial projects would come to this body
for recommendations and they would be asking essentially
for exceptions to these design guidelines.
And we would be relying on your expertise
to say whether or not the evidence is compelling enough
to allow that.
Yeah, that's what I'm getting at really,
is because if Richard Meyer came strolling in here,
he wouldn't match, he wouldn't meet these requirements,
but we would be like really excited to prove it.
I mean, and even some of the things that we've seen
like that that F&M bank I mean that is an example something I wouldn't comply
but they did a really nice job designing it twice so I would just like to see
that those those folks have a voice in a way to get passed through us any other
questions I have no questions either so we don't have to do anything formal so
Oh, great, thanks.
Oh, should I ask for public comment?
Oh, no, we're in the, we're out of the public hearing stuff.
Right?
Okay, are there any comments from the public?
Great, thank you, seeing none.
Okay, so with that, we'll move on to our
commission member and staff reports.
Yes.
Thank you, guys.
I've discovered a mistake that I made.
This is on me, and it was on item 42B,
the item that was continued.
And if we could make a formal vote of hands
if it's okay to reopen this item.
Okay.
Is it okay to reopen?
Okay.
Yep.
I will take, I made the mention to continue this
to a date certain, I believe I said August 4th.
Okay.
actually September 7th if that's okay. Okay. I don't have a strong opinion on the date. Okay, okay.
September 7th, thank you. Okay, don't do that again. I know, how dare you. So we'll move to
commission member and staff reports or announcements. Any from staff? Yes. Okay. The August 4th meeting
is canceled no but it's true the August 4th meeting because of lack of items has
been canceled and then August 21st will be canceled because lack of quorum so
the next meeting will be September 7th when we hear 2890 North me well just
they're not here but thank you to Commissioner Killian and Leah for their
service. That's all. Second that. Yeah that was nice thank you thank you for
mentioning that. Anything else? Okay, adjournment. Thank you.