 just so everybody knows it sounds like board member Sharon is just getting to his desk to log in so we'll give him a couple minutes and then we'll get going after 4 30 just wanted everybody know test test test testine testing chair Weigel can you hear me I can indeed great thank you so much board member Sharon can you do a video audio check for me please I sure can and here they are great thank you so much you are good to go and chair Weigel if you can give me just two more minutes I would greatly appreciate it no worry just let me know when you're ready and we'll just hang out no big deal chair Weigel thank you so much for your patience we are good to go when you are ready thank you sorry I was wrapping something up here I'm waiting for you utilizing my time so if all the members of the board could turn on their cameras that'd be great and maybe turn off the council chamber because we've got sort of an inception situation happening it looks like that's really cool yeah it's fun right I would like to call the regularly scheduled meeting of the City of Santa Rosa Design Reboard to order at 4 38 p.m. so a little reminder why we're still virtual pursuant to government code section 5 4 9 5 3 e and the recommendation of the health officer of the county so number of designer report members will be participating in this meeting via zoom webinar members of the public can participate in virtually at www.zoom.us slash join or by calling via toll-free telephone 1 877 8 5 3 5 2 5 7 both via the zoom platform and via phone use the meeting ID 8 6 7 5 8 4 5 4 0 7 3 public access to the meeting is through the zoom platform and comments can be made during the public comment periods additional information related to meeting participation is available at the city's website at srcity.org slash design review board the meeting is also live streamed on the city's website at fanta dash rosa.legistar.com slash calendar click on the in progress link to view the meeting can also be viewed on Comcast channel 28 and on the city's youtube channel at youtube.com slash city of Santa Rosa so with that I'd like to turn it over to the recording secretary for a roll call thank you let the record reflect that all board members are present and with that we'll go to approval of minutes we don't have any to approve this month start this meeting so we'll just wait for that this next meeting so we'll move to item number 3 this is time when any person any member of the pollock may address matters not listed on this agenda but which are within the subject matter of designer view board and our jurisdiction the public comment on agenda items when that agenda item is called but please only raise your hand now if you're wishing to make public comment on items germane to the designer view board and not listed on the agenda so with that I'll turn it back over to the recording secretary for our little three minute countdown for public comment all right and chair weigel I am not seeing any hands for public comment at this time can we get a quick reminder on making public comments it's either raising your hand in the zoom platform or I always forget what the star nine star six yes exactly star nine raises your hand for call-in listeners and then I'm star six will unmute you excellent all right so I'm not seeing any hands either so with that we'll move it over to item four which is board business and I will read a board statement of purpose at this time and this comes from the city of Santa Rosa zoning code chapter 20-52.030 F project review the review authority shall consider location design site playing configuration and the overall effect of the proposed project upon surrounding properties and the city in general review shall be conducted by comparing the proposed project to the general plan any applicable specific applicable specific plan applicable zoning code standards and requirements consistency of the project within the city design guidelines architectural criteria for special areas and other applicable city requirements e.g. city policy statements and development plans so with that we'll go on to item 4.2 which is our board member reports do we have any board member reports this evening being none we will go to item 4.3 which is other and we have no other business at this time and so with that we will go to item five which is our department report and I'll turn it over to our board liaison senior planner Amy Nicholson good afternoon thank you chair waggle and members of the board just a few items to report out on this afternoon one is that we will be returning to in-person meetings in the council chamber beginning march so that first march meeting if there are items would be march second and we will be sending out an email with additional information to the board and so when the board returns to the chamber members of the public will have that option as well but we will still allow participation by zoom secondly we had a zoning administrator meeting this morning and the zoning administrator approved two projects which the board has seen previously as concept items one of those projects is a multifamily development on pertain lane it still requires planning commission approval of a tentative map and then the second project which was approved this morning was the market rate component of the former journey's end site and so I just wanted to report back to the board that those items were acted on today and then finally we did receive some additional appointments to the board from council members at last week's meeting and so we'll be looking to have those new board members sworn in for next meeting which will be February the second and that concludes my report thank you. Thanks Amy appreciate it. Planner Nicholson I have a question. The in-person meetings you said that there's a hybrid option is that just for the public does do board members have the option for hybrid as well or are we mandatory in person? There are some limited options for board members to participate via zoom and so those will be outlined in the email that will be coming out in the next few days great question. Great thank you very much. That concludes item number five item number six statement of abstention any statement of abstention on any of these scheduled items for this evening Board Member McHugh? 8.1 I know Mike Cook with Integra we serve together on the Metro Chamber Advocacy Council but I have not talked to him at all about this project but I wanted to make that statement or any of the staff. Thanks John. Are any of the staff relative to that so just wanted to make that make the public. Did you talk to staff about that? No I did not. Okay so I also know Mike Cook he's a consultant we use all the time he's landscape architect basically as I understand it and Amy can correct me if I'm wrong the only time when we as board members would need to abstain from a project is if we personally benefit financially from a project so if you don't or if you live within 500 feet of a project I think is the other trigger so if you don't financially benefit from the construction of of item 8.1 and you don't live within 500 feet I think you can act on the item this evening. Amy is that correct? Did I get that all right? That's my understanding I'm looking through some papers right now just to make sure we we have that correct. Okay cool so John I let's let's let them take a peek at that make sure that that you can act on the item I think like I said I know I know Mike professionally and personally and you know if if we're not you know if our architecture firm is not involved in the project then I have no problem acting on the item I don't see this conflict of interest. That being said I have to abstain from item 8.3 the last time we had this we continued it continued it to a date certain hoping that we would have our appointments by today but unfortunately that didn't happen but as I understand it we will be continuing that project again so I have to abstain from item 8.3 due to the fact that our firm has a project immediately adjacent to it. That's already under development so in-house here so I would have to abstain from item 8.3 so we will get to item 8.3 we get there and Amy do you need any more time on item 8.1 for John? It's it sounds like it's okay for board member McHugh to act on this item as there's no financial conflict. All right cool thanks John does that sound good? Good excellent all right and thanks for the disclosure appreciate that so with that being said item 7 is a consent items we do not have any so with that I'd like to move to item 8 which is our scheduled items and that being said I'd like to move to item 8.1 which is a public hearing for the Ridley family apartments sequel exempt project design review 1801 Ridley Avenue DR 21-037 and before we turn it over to the project planner Susie Murray since it is a public hearing I'd like to just get our ex parte disclosure out of the way so Vice Chair Birch do you have any ex parte disclosure on this project none okay board member Q any ex parte disclosure other than you know Mike Cook okay great I just know my all right excellent board member Sharon any ex parte disclosure all right and I have no ex parte disclosure I know adobe associates KTGY architecture integrity W Tran so I'm familiar with it on the team so that doesn't mean we can't act on the item so that being said I would like to turn it over to the project planner senior planner Susie Murray for a staff report yeah sorry for the delay chair Weigel and members of the design review board I am right over here we're just getting our the presentation up and running so that you can see it in full screen whenever I'm involved there's usually usually technical difficulties so the project before you this evening is the Ridley Avenue family apartments the project is located at 1801 Ridley Avenue the regional housing allocations needs through 2023 Santa Rosa's contribution is 583 5000 83 units when this project's constructed it will offer 50 below market rate units which is 2% of the Rena requirements this is an affordable housing project will offer 50 apartments comprised of one two and three bedroom units there are two three-story residential structures and one two-story residential structure and the community space inside includes computer room gathering space with a kitchen and then more common area outside with a community garden taut lot and of course parking this is an aerial view of the site today or in the recent past and it's completely undeveloped pulling back a little ways the parcel is outlined in gold and you can see what's around it and just to give you a little bit of sense of the neighborhood context we have a school and the land use is a public institutional to the north we have residential uses to the west commercial to kind of the southwest and then a lot more residential to the south and then the land use designation is high density residential or medium high density residential to the west of the east but for the most part it's undeveloped at this point the this has been around for a couple of years now or a year and a half initially we had a a pre application development review meeting with staff back in may of 2021 um and the applications were submitted a couple of months after that excuse me in august of 2021 we had the neighborhood meeting and at that point the application was deemed complete in september last year the project came before the design review board and um in november last year um a density bonus was approved and following later that month a minor conditional use permit was approved by the zoning administrator and a correction that came before the board in 2021 not last year this is um this is a uh picture of the land use uh designations um from the general plan and i want to point this out because this has been something that's been an issue for neighbors and i i want everybody to understand what that medium low residential um land use designation how that benefits the neighbors to the north and to the the west um as we get into those those darker colors the kind of the pumpkin-y colors those are higher density residential so if you look at this kind of going from the the upper left hand corner or the northwest corner down to the southwest the southeast corner you can see it goes from very low density where um there's a maximum of two units per acre permitted to the medium low which is the project site where there are um the allowable density is 8 to 13 units per acre and then on the bottom of the screen that that lighter pumpkin color medium density residential that's uh what is it it's 8 to 18 units per acre and then off to the right at that medium high it's 18 to 30 units per acre so you can see this this property really acts as a a nice transition to future development of those other sites here is the zoning and in most cases the zoning is consistent with the general plan um it's it is for this uh site r16 or yeah r16 and the r2 zoning districts implement this general plan land use um r16 is typically associated with the low density residential not the medium low um but it works here as well it's also important to point out that we have some county pockets very close to this site um up to just a little bit to the the northwest there and then that large undeveloped pocket uh off to the east or to the right of the screen that was that is also a county pocket so in terms of the general plan and zoning um the project will implement several goals in the general plan but i think most notable is that it not only provides housing for santa rosa residents but it provides much needed affordable housing ridley family apartments has been reviewed and conditioned in compliance with the the city development standards not just to the zoning code but in terms of circulation emergency access and all street standards as well whoopsie there are six required findings um staff's analysis determined that those findings can be met as uh was shown on the draft resolution the project was reviewed for consistency with the design guidelines um specifically we looked at sections one point one for the neighborhood design it provides diversity and housing type the neighborhood is developed primarily with single family um one and two story structures and this will add in a attached housing option section three point two multifamily development this provides multifamily housing that encourages residents to take pride in a sense of ownership in their neighborhood um the the the project you know will have on-site management and be kept very nice so section uh four point three for infill development as i mentioned previously the project plans have been reviewed by city staff including the fire department building division engineering development services and of course planning and others water parks and recreation and so on and um the project has been conditioned appropriately um the as far as fitting into the neighborhood the exterior building materials are very similar to materials commonly found in residential development even if it's not um exactly what's found in this neighborhood i think it's safe to say that it's consistent on the left here is uh the site plan the left image and then there's an um kind of a bird's eye view of what the project will look at or look like from the same vantage point i'm not going to discuss um a whole lot about the the exterior materials or the buildings or the site layout i'm going to leave that to the applicant so you don't have to hear it twice again here we show one elevation and the rendering that is um from the same perspective and uh a material legend and same comment holds i'm going to defer for a lot of detail discussion to the applicant team the project has been reviewed in compliance with the california environmental quality act or CEQA um this was the sixth finding um it's uh the project um is is categorically exempt as infill development pursuant to section 15332 um it's because it's consistent with the general plan and zoning it's less than five acres it's within city limits and substantially surrounded by urban development there's no known habitat for endangered rare or threatened species although i i would like to point out at this point that the project has been conditioned to do some um uh you know bird and bat um surveying depending on what time of year they start uh ground disturb disturbance and then there are no significant impacts anticipated as a result of traffic or too traffic noise air quality or water quality and the project can be served by all required utilities and services we have had um several uh public comments um let's see uh use for there were some questions about the use for the community kitchen we don't regulate the community kitchen and typically speaking if there's a if there's a special event that takes place in some cases they may require um uh not a special event permit but maybe it is a special event permit yes it is on private property um uh shadowing neighborhood uses um these are going to be three stories yes and but the closest structure i believe is is more than 50 feet away and so i i think there's little concern if any of any shadowing happening on other residential or yeah other structures um will it be lead certified i don't believe it's going to be lead certified but it will have um solar panels and i'm sure the applicant will talk about that um solar panels and it has it has to be constructed in compliance with calgreen um and the all electric zoning code uh it's there was some concern about the required uh right-of-way dedications um when looking at the previously approved uh west borough project um nothing's changed there uh i do have uh cleave gurney from our engineering development services division um on in case there are any questions they these are um our three-story structures are not suitable for the neighborhood i think uh i think i've already discussed that in compact in my compatibility and the goal to achieve uh um um a variety of housing types um a fence should be installed along the southern property line adjacent to the church this is a recent issue that came up and um it's we have the the zoning administrator approved the site plan and um an eight-foot fence along the west property line in the north property line in order to do an eight-foot fence on the southern property line we would have to take this uh back to back for a revision to the minor conditional use permit we can do by right on that southern property line i should say an eight-foot solid fence we can do a six-foot solid fence or we can do a six-foot solid fence with two feet of lattice on the top and there's been some discussion and now this was only adjacent to the church and that's only a portion of the southern property line so the intent or the hope is that we can have that discussion applicant design review board and neighbors to see just what that design will look like and i don't expect you to remember what i just said but i will chime in later if we need to talk more about the eight-foot uh structure and what's permitted there so there are no unresolved issues and i think i had also before i go on i want to say i sent out a revised a revised resolution this afternoon very late delivery my apologies it was also put up on the website to talk about some additional tree mitigation measures there was concern about how much protection there was for wildlife there was concern about protection for trees on neighborhood or neighboring properties and so we didn't lighten what was already approved we've replaced it with something that's more probably more appropriate and the applicant and arborist and and neighbor have all agreed on on what was added during the concept review meeting back in september of 2021 there were some i will say that the design review board in my opinion was seemed very happy with this project with very minor changes one of the inquiries that came up was the use of the pathway heading or going north of the site and i don't know if i can yes i can the pathway along here that will go north north to the property and then wrap around here this section here on the property just north of the subject site there is an easement so yes students that live at this at ridley avenue family apartments will be able to access the schoolyard the school both schools bike racks one of the comments was that bike racks should be placed in eyes on locations i'm going to let the applicant show you on the site plan where there's those are and if they need to be moved we can condition that provide shade in the courtyard they have provided plantings and a trellis area provide a plan for the trash enclosure they have one and it's included in their presentation and i didn't point that out on the site plan i think you'll remember when you see it it's at the northwest corner of the structure complex so it's separated from the neighbors by the dry vial there was a lot of discussion about the shade of white i'll let y'all continue that discussion with the applicant when they do their presentation and oops look at i put those up there and i forgot that arrow points to the pathway and the star is the property that we're talking about so with that it's recommended by the planning and economic development department that the design review board grant design review for the ridley avenue family apartments an affordable housing project at 1801 ridley avenue my contact information is shown there and in case there's somebody calling in that cannot see the screen i can be reached by telephone at 707-543-4348 and contrary to popular belief i do answer my phone and return my phone calls so that concludes my presentation i'm going to go ahead and give me a minute if you could to get the applicant's presentation up and ready for them dizzy um so just as a friendly reminder um typically what we've been doing is we'll do the staff presentation then the applicant presentation then we'll go and open the public hearing and take public comment and then we'll bring it back to the board for questions of the applicant and staff and then we'll go to comments and hopefully a motion to get this project rolling so with that i'll just uh well hang on we'll wait for suzie to get the applicant presentation up and if the applicant could raise your hand the one that's going to be speaking if you could um that would be great and then uh our lovely city staff will grant you permission to speak applicant josh read you should have permissions um now to unmute as well as applicant rick hindricks here can you hear me we can thank you we can and suzie are you ready to go yes we are just tell me when to change slides okay well we can go best this first one um thank you very much for that very comprehensive uh presentation suzie you took much of my thunder there um but uh good afternoon board miniverse we appreciate you having us back i'm josh read i'm myl stone's partner on really avenue family apartments and uh as suzie said we've been working on this project for quite some time suzie wanted to go to uh the next slide i'm trying hold on one sec okay and this is a bit of a recap from what suzie said but it really is on 2.61 acres in northwest san rosa this particular part of town has been historically underserved for affordable housing um so it's been well received with with uh excuse me josh it's suzie can you can you speak up a little bit we're having a hard time hearing you let me see if i get you closer to mine there you go is that better much thank you okay sure uh really close to the many amenities that will benefit the residents including public transportation the schools and adjacent parks shopping and more um it's sort of by the bus route the intersection of burnville road and really avenue and it's a half mile to the smart train station and um it lies directly adjacent to the north san rosa stationary specific plan um and it's a short distance to downtown we can go the next slide suzie um we have our architects here to um walk you through the outdated design we did um hear um board member feedback from the last meeting we have repositioned the buildings along well within the project in part to accommodate better circulation with wind gate drive but it also created a more gradual transition between the three-story buildings and the adjacent single family homes um we also heard feedback that we had uh too much concrete and we're lacking shade around the project so we've redesigned the common areas in the courtyard to um to increase shade and provide more pervious surfaces throughout the project um suzie mentioned bicycle racks and we can have uh rick or nick walk us through that and then we do have a um exhibit for the traction closure as well um and and with that i i actually think i could probably because suzie already mentioned much of what else i was going to walk you through um i think we can hand this off to ktgy if they want to start looking at the next slide and through the design package um i think that's going to be from nick stockler or keith labus if either of them had their hand up so hi this is nick stockler at ktgy can you hear me loud and clear thank you thank you suzie thank you josh um thank you board for the opportunity to present our project um josh touched on some of the big changes primary to the site plan um we got a lot of good feedback about the architecture um a year and a half ago when we presented this uh to the board um well let's move on to the next slide and we can discuss some of the um big changes to the site plan as as josh mentioned we had revised the street section along windgate drive um kcr civil engineer should be on a call if you had any technical questions about what that entails but primarily the right of way would eventually would would get wider which used up some of our buildable area that forces to reconsider how to lay out the buildings so the previous iteration uh if you'd recall that presentation the apartment buildings here seen in yellow which are three-story moaco buildings each of those yellow buildings has 24 units previously they fronted on to the resident parking and private drive aisles that come up on ridley avenue and windgate drive due to the reconfiguration we relocated one of the apartment buildings to front of the long windgate drive as you can see um adjacent to the cleaning that number down so along windgate drive is um apartment building community guardian and a haircut into into the project um it was I think it's a fortuitous change because the uh the arrangement and um compartmentalization of the open space uh made sense for how um how eric has programmed it um we have a strong axial relationship between the club room in the leasing the many's building that fronts on to a indoor outdoor patio space and eventually a flexible turf area as you can see on that central spine and then um eight the top lot is located uh furthest away from the intersection of ridley and windgate trying to keep away from the uh more busy public streets with uh laundry and central leasing and many building fronting on to the top lot and then south of leasing and many building um is our lobby and mailroom and the kind of interface between the public um being that uh south facing community garden so that uh leasing and many building there would describe the program on the first floor as two stories with um two units on the second floor which um was also a reaction to uh comments about shading uh potential shading issues on that uh eastern eastern property so hopefully we mitigated that um with this configuration and activated wing gate with the community garden and um and the apartment building providing some I believe we ended up with uh nine or ten additional parking spaces on wing gate drive that this configuration so I think we we got parking out of this as well so that was primarily the big change with the the push pain to get wing gate drive to match the city right away standard uh you go to the next slide and talk a little bit about the architecture the elevations um were inspired by the context um a lot of picture of buildings not many um contemporary established um vernacular um however this is somewhat of a transitional style mixing some of the flat roofs, pissed roofs and um drawing some inspiration from a modern style with some of the higher contrasting darker uh sill and header trims and um fascia and little darker charcoal um asphalt conch and the roofs and um the flat or the flat roof board and baton um language as well the front elevation elevation number one is is what's fronting onto wing gate drive and that has the entrances into the buildings which um we've clad in stone veneer trying to um embellish the those entries into the building uh trying to acknowledge those entries uh you move on to the next uh this is the two-story leasing and amenity building um with the uh two residential units on the second floor one of those being most likely the uh um blank of the word sorry um i'll circle back to that remember and then uh as you can see on the front elevation that's the entrance into the lobby again clad clad in the stone veneer that acknowledges the entry again and mixing the languages of the blue born baton flat roof and next slide um there was questions about the trash enclosure that was omitted from the previous presentation um we would anticipate the elevations during something like a split-face senior block and we would match the color within landscaping walls or use of stone in the landscaping palette so make sure it blends in and then painting any of the metal uh gates um to match the metal uh metal work of the railing on the apartments and then a capstone on the top of the ceiling next slide there's some uh several renderings that demonstrate the feel of the project uh this is a view facing north so you could see the uh the building uh front elevation fronting out to winigate with the community garden to the left there next slide this is a aerial view looking east which you can see how the two-story uh leasing and amenity building fronts under the um the kind of three quadrants of landscape know it we talk a little about those details next slide uh the top rendering is uh the leasing and amenity building let's see that the stone being uh applied to the entrances at the lobby and then the same language applied to that entrance to the apartment building so uh the bottom rendering is a view of the closer to the intersection of ridley and winigate so um i think we'd be activating winigate a little bit better in this configuration where we have residential fronting on to um that public street next slide these are some snapshots of the conceptual landscape the image on the left is that um that long axial landscape configuration where on the ridley side you can see where we would have monument signage and some aesthetic landscape and then it transitions to a flexible lawn space which can be used as a little active space and then it transitions to a trellis patio that terminates in the club room and on the right side the right top image you can see the leasing and amenity building it's that lower profile and then on the right side is um the apartment building with the community garden in between and the bottom right image is that is the proposed top lot being adjacent to the laundry area inside the club room and then i think we have one more slide um and this was the colors and materials board um trying to utilize colors and materials that are reminiscent of um modern farmhouse architecture um and with that i think i'll um let rick discuss the landscape architecture a little bit more after we move on to the next slide if rick from integra yeah thanks nick i appreciate it um and good evening board members i'm rick henricks with the integra planning landscape architecture um i think nick's done a fairly good job of kind of explaining the different program areas on the side uh so i won't spend too much time but um you know as he was saying we we have a nice central courtyard area off the the clubhouse leasing area um the main area will have a shade structure uh we're also proposing you know uh game tables for multi-generational uh kind of feel to it and then as he said a multi-purpose tentative area um large enough you know they could have a cornhole game out there or um um just for the kids to be able to play and play around on um to the northwest corner is the uh playground area um we are planning on having swings and a uh two to twelve uh play equipment um again they're trying to capture as much um play for different age groups to the southwest is the community garden uh rather large community garden um that again multi-generational use can be used by all uh members of the community or all members of the uh the apartment complex both the taut lot and the community garden area will have a low fence uh around it again to pry a little bit of security um for those areas um earlier was mentioned too about bike racks and i think if you could go maybe to the next slide uh we have four areas it's a little hard to see on here but um though from the leasing office there's a bike rack area just to the northwest corner of that building and then um the north building has bike racks between the taut lot and the main building and then on the south side between the community garden and the residential building more bike racks and then in the central courtyard to the east of the turf area is another grouping of bike racks so we've spread them out throughout the site I think it covers the area they're all well within kind of view range and additional lighting will be looked at in those areas as well actually if you could probably go back a slide I kind of jumped over maybe some of the planting and things there thank you so on where the landscape planting we're proposing again screen trees around the border of the property to the the west and north on the south side there's a lovely oak tree that we are planning to preserve there right on the property line there and several other trees in that area the ones that are kind of in the screen back not colored mode are the trees that we are proposing to save the the other ones are the street trees and the shade trees within the site and then inside the courtyard area again shade trees and accent trees to provide shade and aesthetics if you can go two slides forward is just some inspirational images of what we're we're foreseeing for some of the different areas for the taut lot the site amenities for the the pergola shade structure and then some of the seating amenities and game tables again for the multi-generational use one there the next slide is just a black and white version of the plant the colored rendered planting plan the plant material will have to meet the required the m willow requirements for the city so it'll be a lot of low water use native drought tolerant plant material um within the palette and I guess with that I'll turn it back over I think to the applicant for closing comments thank you rick and thank you nick I think that's pretty pretty good summary I don't think we've ridden up my job but as soon as you mentioned we will be providing solar to offset at least 60 percent of the electrical demand and the project will be a hundred percent electric as per the new city standard I don't know if we miss anything else but we're certainly here to answer any questions we also have available our civil engineer and our traffic consultant as well uh adobe and w trans so um let's definitely hit as a group the the the fence and um no suzie I think I can turn it back over to you I'm sorry I didn't understand that I'm sorry so I think that kind of completes our presentation we're happy to field questions from the board so all right thank you so at this time I'd like to open up our public hearing um and take public comment on this project so um we'll open up public hearing if you'd like to make a comment on this project uh please raise your hand in the zoom platform or if you are calling in press star nine star nine I always forget thank you star nine star nine uh and the recording secretary will recognize you so we'll let hands get raised here in a minute and then I'll turn it over to you michelle thank you so much first we have keith keith you should have a prompt allowing yours you to unmute yourself if you could please start by stating your name for the record um my name is keith bridges thank you so much go ahead okay um thank you for allowing me to speak uh I represent the property and grounds committee uh for the redwood forest friends meeting we're the quaker congregation immediately to the south of the project and I just want to say we're in total support of this project my interactions with the project manager josh reed have been excellent and the senior planner susie marie have been excellent uh I do have a ongoing concern about the project and that's that there's really no fence stipulations that I could find in the project at all well we've been told that the fence on our shared boundary uh is going to be an eight foot solid wood fence but then we're told that no it has to be six foot uh because of minor conditional use permit requirements which is fine if that's as much as we can get we'd rather not have a lattice on top because those tend to start coming off after about four or five years but our main concern about the fence is longevity and so without finding any kind of fence drawings or stipulations or anything about fencing on the materials board I really don't know what kind of fence posts are going to be used I've uh sent susie marie our hopes for what the fence materials might be but just a statement that is going to be a six foot wood fence is really not enough for us to believe that the fence would be would have longevity so that's our concern we hope that we're going to be able to still be in productive communications with josh read around this issue we would certainly rather have pressure treated fence posts or galvanized steel fence posts some kind of four feet with concrete and then overlapping fence pickets in the nature of a good neighbor fence but none of that I can find in any sort of stipulations on the drawing so that's leaving us feeling a little bit nervous the other issue around protection of the heritage tree that's been our shared boundary seems to have been met by these additional documents that have been put into the project especially that generally the monitoring arborists will be notified anytime there's going to be construction activities occurring within the tree protection song for that heritage tree we do expect the fence will meet up on both sides of that heritage tree but will be protected in the process and by the project arborist that's all thank you well done great and chair weigel I am seeing no other hands for this item I'm here so at that with that we will close the public hearing and bring it back to the board and so hang on I got a hand raised so let me reopen the public hearing again and we'll see who admin is Republic comment admin you should have a prompt allowing you to unmute if you could please start by stating your name for the record can you hear me we can okay um Keegan I'm at 1715 Ridley Avenue Southern adjacent property to the project I'd like to make some comments about a few things one is the kitchen so the concern one concern with kitchen would be in the communal cooking area is event is sort of events but there's not enough parking or egress to and from the property currently West Westgate is it the southern road is not completed and Ridley right away has a bottleneck restrictions until those properties get developed in the minor street improvements happen so there's a very serious bottleneck here and any overflow spill parking from any community type happenings there's really nowhere to park Ridley is not very long street and then there's no parking on Gernbill road so the kitchen and that whole area would incur over parking in regards to the fascia and so forth or the finishes I'd encourage more stone there's I don't really see any stone out the front of the building that fronts Ridley I think the board could pursue some improvements there such as more stone more depth to it it's very stark and monolithic quite frankly the Ridley facing side looks more like the back of a hotel and the leasing office side looks more like the front of a hotel so I would encourage more depth and improvements to the front the fence I won't go into the details but I would support all of Keith's comments that he made and I would hope for possibly the six foot with the two foot lattice attachment and the finally the paint even the trash bins are painted screen is painted white I think that needs to be toned down to some earth tones and the definitely I think the white is too stark of a contrast with the other dark color so I would encourage the board to pursue some different colors there and I believe that's all I have and my time's up thank you caller could you please restate your name for the record I'm so sorry I missed it oh I'm sorry Thomas Keegan perfect thank you so much and with that chair Weigel I'm seeing no other hands and the same with me so with that we'll bring it back to the board and we'll do questions of the applicant and staff but I thought I'd start with answering maybe a couple of these excuse me public questions because I think I think I know the answer based on the drawings so the last public comment was about the design of the trash enclosure and how it was painted white and it looks to me in the drawings provided to us on the material legend it's actually just split face masonry block which will match the landscape walls I'm assuming that's a just standard kind of gray split face masonry block maybe rick and dockler the project manager for KT UI can can confirm that and you guys are welcome to unmute yourselves and answer that or the applicant josh read this isn't a project architect yeah we were proposing a split face CMU block one of the colors from work bill and to coordinate it with the landscape wall as the as the palette is for I I don't know if specifically what colors rick is proposing but we really want to watch to stay cohesive that's the intention okay excellent and then the other one I think I wanted to send Susie down this rabbit hole while we ask some other questions um Susie or Amy or whomever from staff um put the question on the fence uh Susie you touched it on it in your staff presentation but um I think a little bit of clarity between what was included in the minor conditional use permit would be helpful um I heard I heard fans I heard eight I don't know so some clarity would be nice on that one um so I'm going to let you run that down and while you're doing that I was going to turn it over to board member Sharon see if you had any questions I can I'm sorry do you want me to wait for board member Sharon to ask questions or do you want a response to the fence I do not have any question okay well done Susie I just figured you might have to run it down or something um so I wanted to give you some time so you know but if you have it right in front of you hey great you know what I I I know it I know the fence um issues so for an eight foot fence if it's constructed on the rear or side yard with six feet of solid and two feet of lattice on top we can do an eight foot fence by right if it is any other construction like eight foot solid or eight foot with corrugated metal for the top two feet or something like that it triggers the the minor conditional use permit the project was approved to have a solid wood which is different than the six foot of solid two feet of lattice a solid wood fence on the west side and on the north side the west side terminates where the street starts so it runs along the west side to win gate and then no more fence so win gate on the south side of win gate there are two properties a portion of the church I believe and excuse me and Mr. Keegan's property um what we're the question to the board is not whether or not the applicant will put a fence on that southern boundary but what that said that fence will look like will it be six feet of solid I know I I apologize the gentleman that spoke from the church I I don't remember his name but I um I want to reassure him that if it's an eight foot fence it will require a building permit and the building department will sign off on it and that means it's gotta be a have a footing that's going to it'll stay sturdy and as far as the concerns about the the lattice on the top I have it's been my experience that if we don't go with the diagonal but we go with the 90 degree lattice the square lattice that that tends to hold up a lot longer and um yeah so the so the benefit I should say of having the lattice is the building to put division weighs in on it without the lattice it can be constructed without a building permit and the applicant is also more than happy to you know use pressure treated with concrete posts you know post holes and filled with concrete and build it properly so they'll be sharing a property line too thanks Susie um correct me if I'm wrong but I feel like we as the DRB have the authority to approve an eight foot fence so I'm I'm going to correct you you have the the authority to design an eight foot fence but you don't have the the the eight foot fence itself um is a conditional use permit and that's out of the purview of the design review board so you have on the the solid wood fence that's on the west and north property line you absolutely have a hand in that if you don't like that design this is the time you can change that because we only approved I I condition or we conditioned the project to have an eight foot solid fence and that was to ensure privacy for the property next door to the west and and to the north it's across the once constructed there will be a street that separates the site from the two other properties from 1715 Ridley and the church that takes access off of Gernvill okay I'm actually I'm I'm re-looking at the uh the zoning administrator resolution and I see it right there under conditions of approval and it says the perimeter fence along the western and northern property line shall be eight feet tall and constructed solid wood no lattice and then the item immediately below that says contingent upon design review approval wait one second I would agree I I'm going to enter I didn't mean to interrupt but it looks like I already have so um Amy just pointed out a section of the zoning code with height limits a a fence in a residential zoning district is subject to the following and option two is multifamily dwelling and non-residential properties shall require design review approval and are not subject to the height limits shown in table three one so if you want to approve a fence it looks like you can on that southern property line thanks yeah I had a sneaking I remember reading that for some random reason so thank you for for hunting that down I appreciate that um uh did ever do all the board members understand what that means make sure yeah I drew I wanted to just interject I understand and maybe go ahead the board could weigh in real quick I'm not convinced that the height of the fence was the issue with the public commenter or or even the neighbor who preferred the eight-foot fence but I think it was the durability and longevity of the fence um and and I think that the I think that the zoning code kind of addresses the difference between good neighbor fences between private property owners and perhaps a good neighbor fence between two different uses a church and a multifamily complex and I don't know what I so I understand if I heard the public comments right they're talking about the durability and the longevity of the fence more than the height of the fence and I don't know if my comment what I had written down was does does the designer view board have the purview to make make conditions for the construction of a fence related to durability and and I just you know um and not to muddy the issue but I think they're talking about a topic of 10 years down the road and is the fence in good condition and how is the replacement of the fence you know um mandated and would we rather just have something that we know is going to be durable for 25 years so that's my thought I don't know what the other board members think uh do you make talks on fence well my my sense is is that we are the design review board we are not the design board so the issue with respect to the fence is is it consistent with design guidelines that we have for this kind of situation and so that would be my that would be my question that's probably to the to the staff and to the board member sharing um I I I think uh one John you do make a good point about we are not the design board but we are the design review board definitely um I I do think that um I do think that we can weigh in on the construction of it though because the design does have a a design and aesthetic component and the materials which is you know if we're looking at say the materials of a breezeway or trash enclosure we're going to dictate you know what we would like so I think we can weigh in on the actual construction of it um you know I think we're going down to construction details necessarily um um that's my thought on that I I guess um I'm I guess Michael I'd like you to restate your your question to what you know what we're supposed to be answering you know to answer your question my my impression from having read the public correspondence and having listened to the comments was that it was it was the durability of the fence more than the height and and I think that the questions and the public correspondence were really all about mostly about um you know that I mean the the the neighbor on the on the Quaker side outlined the construction of the fence prior to the aesthetics of the fence and the ladder and I think most of that came through so that that was just that was my impression was that the concern was more about the appropriate barrier between different uses and the ability of that barrier to stay up so you know backyard backyard fences I mean we regulate height and we go to the lattice above six feet to create openness and not create you know fort Apache that sort of thing right so in this case my my impression was that it was more it was more about the standards for the standards for separations between projects and fencing in commercial projects is much different than residential projects it's not just aesthetic there's a different and these are two different uses and I just I I kept kind of I kept kind of grimacing about the good neighbor fence piece because to me that seems like a very residential backyard neighbor side yard neighbor um set up and so that was it I'm not and I'm not even really throwing an opinion out there about what we can do but I was just trying to highlight what I thought the what I thought was the primary concern from the neighborhood so yeah I think you're you're right on with that I think that that's what I read the the primary concerns are you know it's it it's durability because they want something sturdy because um you know what I read in the public comments was that it's primarily about um uh you know security and safety that's really the purpose of the fence so you know when I think about fencing it's kind of what's the purpose of the fence because that can dictate the form of the fence too um and and so if it's a safety security fence you know you know we could condition something to be permeable you know that we want to be able to see through it if that's part of the the purpose of it this way you know it's I think everyone's you know we're sort of on board with solid wood fence that's what's conditioned around the um the other um so you know the west and the north um I think the height is a concern and Susie brought up the you know the interesting point of eight feet building permit below that um and the six foot with two foot lettuce is is no building permit so it's a little bit easier um easier of a process um you know that's an interesting one too because you know it's safety security fence it's also on the other side of a road um you know wind gate that eventually is going to be a road um but it is a road now it's an access drive but so we're going to have a roadside fence between two uses there safety and security and there's also the heritage tree as well that's right there um so yeah it's I I agree Michael it's a it's a tricky um it's a tricky fence to to discuss um the the way I've been thinking about it is is really um is making a call on on that height um I think we can um I don't know I I guess this is a question for for Susie as well so you know if there is a offense that's part of this there's not there's no bill building permit required um will you see the um the um the drawings for a proposed fence will this come to you so my my question is will staff have a weigh in on this you know not normally no uh anything under seven feet doesn't require a building permit we might drive by I frequently do to see how things are built um and and make sure that the design matches but um no we don't we don't monitor we don't see the plans if no plans or permits are required sure yeah so you're not signing off um you know that does make it it tricky to do I mean it it adds in an element of the unknown to just uh to agree to the six foot fence and not a want not require a building permit you know if we go eight foot good building permit someone's going to sign off on it structurally you know actually um I I was just talking to Amy and I think that maybe I think that the board could settle on a design and without requiring a building permit ask them to provide a design of you know how how it's constructed we have them a lot of times people do that for building permits we have a standard in the lobby that people just pluck it off the wall and say this is how we're going to construct it those are for eight foot fences those are for building permit you know building permits in this case if they just wanted to show us how it's being constructed I agree uh with vice chair birch that um that the issue isn't really what the fence how high the fence is it's not even what the fence looks like it's that the fence is going to be a sturdy fence I don't think the applicant would be opposed to providing that detail it's just there's a detail actually in the in the plans right now it's for a six foot fence with and I think it's on the landscape plan I'm not sure with two feet of lattice I don't know how detailed it gets it might just be above ground detail but it may give the information that we're looking for I personally don't know how to construct a fence I'm sure I could figure it out but um but in answer to the question we could ask for just that the detail of how it's going to be constructed not that it won't generate anything but a check mark yeah which I think is is good and um yeah it yeah yeah sorry John I saw you had your hand up why don't you go ahead I do but what I what I'm thinking about is is if we're really talking about the construction of the fence itself I mean my guess is there are certain standards of how you do that and so I mean if that's an issue then one of the the provet the provisos that it's constructed appropriately to last as long as it needs to last I mean it's a listening conversation I mean we're really not talking about the design of the fence we're talking about the the the fence as a as something that's going to last for a while and so I'm thinking make sure somebody I'm going to I'm going to jump in here real quick guys so I think I think there's three critical elements that I think Michael was good on keying off on a couple of them so um so the first thing is do we have the purview to design said fences on any perimeter of the property and it sounds like we can do we need to make a decision on height while it's not critical from what we heard from the neighbors but there is a condition within the zoning approval already for two sides of the property and then three there is a there is a design contained within the applicant presentation and uh very often when we review projects with fences the design is supposed to be in the package and so um I would argue against what John said in that uh the design and materiality of fence is is 1000% within our purview because if we pick redwood over dug fur for instance redwood is infinitesimally more durable than untreated dug fur right from a wood perspective if we say we want a metal fence that is even more durable uh you know a galvanized metal fence that's even more durable than wood if we want a stainless steel powder coated fence that's even more durable right you see i'm saying so the selection of materiality is actually is very much associated with the resilience and the durability of a of something whatever it is whether it's a building or a fence so I think that's totally within our purview now the question is you know we're talking about something that's not within the scope of the project currently right um so there is an additional cost associated with this and so we'll have to talk to the applicant about um you know how this impacts their project uh as well um but Michael do you have anything to add yeah so you know I don't I I want to make make sure and and John I hear you being a clever old uh design review board chair and a member for some time I also do know that one of the things that goes forward even in our more limited capacity which is not not the case with this project but um that those items that are in our minutes become um highlighted items for the staff staff review at the building level and at the planning level down the road so when this concern regarding the fence and whatever broad comments we could make rather than just designing a fence go forward with with these minutes these things will be noted I think we can probably have a congenial and healthy discussion with the applicant when we get into talking with them I think we can send them forward with a mission that reflects the public comment that has been made which is our primary um responsibility as a board and staff planning staff and building staff this note travels and uh so I you know again don't want to see we've had a couple of projects in the past few years where I'd help somebody pick colors and it made me sick to my stomach but it had to be done those are not the things that I like to do or want to do and in this case I don't want to design a fence tonight or or tell them that they have to use powder coated steel posts but I do want to see if we can't come to an agreement and there's just an understanding that this public concern and this concern the board's travels with the approval so that's that's really where I you know that's how I feel a lot of our issue that's where a lot of items in our purview can really fall in terms of how we of what our responsibility is and how we can impact a positive outcome so that's that's what I'm hoping for now I less I designed a fence already today so I'm done well well said yeah and I think yeah thanks Michael and and I think the other thing that's a little challenging I would just add is that the fence design that is in the applicant presentation is wildly pixelated so I can't even tell what the heck it is you know graphically I can tell you that it has a footing and it's likely made out of wood I mean that's about all I could and that's no fault of you know Integra or Rix it just you know it happens sometimes with digital documents so not the end of world so I think we I think we're we can move on from the questions on the fence I think we've got a direction it sounds like and we've got a charge and I do want to acknowledge I see Mr. Bridge's hand up again and unfortunately we closed the public hearing and so we can't take any more comment from you unfortunately I'd love to but because this is a public hearing we cannot so we will move on and we will move on to Vice Chair Birch any questions beyond what we've already discussed no or staff no I was just there I was I was there on the fence so excellent and John any questions no I'm just what did we decide to do with respect to the fence oh okay sure so I think you know I kind of summarized it and then Michael summarized it too I think I think we can have a you know like we used to in the old old room number seven there we can have a conversation with the applicant and say hey you've got an eight foot fence on this side and this side what are you guys planning on doing what are your thoughts hey can we do that this on this side you know have a little back and forth meet the requirements of the public comment which is mostly our charge as Michael said is to listen to the public comments and try to you know incorporate that and then you know find a solution that will send them on their way and we can condition the project in a way that incorporates those elements without being too onerous and giving the applicant flexibility which is something that I think we do a lot because you know we want the the item to keep going down the road and that would be and that would be my choice as well I wanted to keep going on down the road excellent all right so no more okay no more questions I think from you guys I did have a couple of random questions this is a for the applicant architect or applicant themselves uh were the changes in windgate drive so previously windgate had some kind of notched parking and stuff and there were some fingers and then it changed to just a straight road with what appears to be street parking did did that in any way change or reduce any of the parking on the parcel on the whole my recollection is it actually increased the parking spaces by a few if you're counting the spaces along windgate um Casey maybe the closest to that if we need an exact answer hey josh this is this is nick I have the numbers pulled up um before we made the change I believe we had nine we're calling out nine parallel parking spaces on a wing gate and then we revised the right of way that number became 18 and I believe we maintained a consistent 66 uh head in parking spaces um for the residents so that's great it sounds like yeah so it sounds like the re the rejiggering of windgate actually increased the parking on site yes it did which is cool that's excellent all right thanks for answering that um let's be here okay so we had a member of the public that had some concerns with the community kitchen now Susie already kind of spoke with to that a little bit um it's my understanding and I think the developer can answer this that community kitchens community rooms uh are pretty standard amenities for apartment complexes or you know uh uh parcels that are including some element of a leasing office or a pool pool house or it could be any any sort of type of building but there seems to always be some sort of um community kitchen really and it's more like break room kitchen at least to me at least how I'm reading it right so there's a refrigerator there might be a sink with the disposal there might be a dishwasher but they may not be like cooking facilities depending on how the developer wants to manage that space so can you can you speak to that a little bit about just I think just your your kind of broad plans for the community room right it's it's there just to serve the residents it's not for public events there's no commercial but um it is more so as a break room if you don't want to go in there and you know microwave a bag of popcorn that's that's kind of the intent so okay and then I and so I think if I'm reading the drawings correctly I mean I'm seeing maybe an ice maker a refrigerator a two compartment sink and a dishwasher I'm not seeing any cooking equipment like a range or anything like that would that be right you know we've done it both ways Keith I or Nick what was the intent on this when I'm trying to remember it typically we would have a microwave like say there's definitely no commercial hood and yeah there's it's not a commercial kitchen um I believe we would have a sink refrigerator for for community events I don't I I'm not sure what uh my also intends if it's cooking classes or something for the for the community for the residents hi this is Keith but it's something kind of here it's really important to and then is Keith late is Keith lay this part of the applicant team there guys yes actually he was he was just speaking Susie can you unmute Keith can you can you hear me now yes there you go we can thank you as Josh was saying the the community room is really for the use of residents and their guests it's it's for you know if the kids that live there somebody's having a birthday party and they want you know their living room is not big enough to have a double kid over it's it's for things like that for just community events so it's you're not inviting people from the out from the general public that would increase the parking or anything like that right so I think I think what the member of the public was asking I think you answered it is you're not renting the room correct for events and stuff it's to gain access to the room you have to live on the property correct and then obviously within the parking count you have visitor spaces built in and all that kind of stuff and so you know somebody has a birthday you know the five-year-old and unit 55 has you know 10 friends over there's visitor parking on site for those 10 friends to come or whatever it's really kind of how it's yeah small-scale gatherings or community gatherings within who lives in the in the complex correct okay cool excellent thank you so much yeah I just I wanted to that's kind of what I was thinking to based on what I was seeing in the in the architectural plans there based on my interpretation of the equipment so it sounds like we're on the same page all right let me just go down my list here I think I got everything question wise okay so with that we'll bring it back to the board here again and I'm looking for a motion on this item and remember motion can be to approve the project motion can be to approve the project with conditions and or a motion can be to deny the project so those are the options tonight vice-chair burks you're on mute I do my best work on mute I'd like to make a motion to approve the resolution of the design review board of the city of Santa Rosa granting design review approval for Ridley avenue family apartments located at 10 to 10108 Ridley avenue assessor's parcel number 036-091-051 file number prj21-015 dr21-037 and waive the reading of the text so we have a motion to approve the project do I see a second I will second all right so board member Sharon a second it did so we have a motion a second on the board here and so to approve and so now we're looking for comments on the project following Rosenberg's rules and so we'll go to board member Sharon for his comments on the project thank you chair weigel thank you planet Murray for a wonderful presentation and for shepherding this through to where we are today and thank you applicant teams for your presentation and for bringing this back to us I'm definitely glad to see this again and very much in favor of the revisions that you've made I think that yeah the circulation and the layout really some great improvements and great opportunities that were afforded by I think that you had to do so I think that yeah this is a this is a great iteration and I thank you very much for that in your hollywood chair member birch you're still you're now you're unmuted I'm still doing doing my best work yeah you're doing your best work as muted up yes definitely in favor of the project in favor of the iteration I think the layout is great the architecture definitely appreciates the revisions as well I have just a couple of thoughts about the landscape and layouts drew up maybe I'll think while I'm thinking about I'll ask this do you want us to weigh in now on the fence and us making a decision or should we have a separate board discussion about that you know what your landscape architect take it off why not let's see what you got and maybe you'll wrap maybe maybe you'll put a nice bow around it well I'll agree with you yeah um well I'll get to that in a sec then uh um yeah I a couple of things I really like about the rejiggering of the the layout um one I feel like you listen to a lot of our concerns or our thoughts on the process and or the project and and so it's always great to hear that um that our thoughts are being heard um it's also really great to hear them that the thoughts and concerns about the immediate neighbors and the overall community are being heard as well it sounds like um the conversations that are happening are really positive um sounds like everyone is is um in a positive frame of mind about this development um so kudos on that um uh yeah I um I think that one the the axial relationship that you've got through the center of the courtyard the the moving of the buildings is is great the moving of the community garden in the totlatt areas um I think it's definitely improvements um central courtyard area um yeah I think it's activated very well um and very well thought out the the one quibble I have is with the one island where the marquee sign is um it uh it to me just feels uh that the bicycle racks in that location it's kind of an awkward place I understand it's eyes on the bike bicycle racks um it's very visible which is great it feels a bit like a missed opportunity um that that could be also activated you could have you know you've got the transition from the as you termed it the aesthetic layout um with the marquee sign seating area or turf area which is active seating area which is more passive um you know I I almost feel that there there's um you know as as the landscape architect it's we always like to see the aesthetic concerns or the aesthetic um pieces of the the exterior come come to to bear but I feel like you know a third of that island or um half of it to the western um side could be um it could be rethought just a little bit doesn't necessarily need to be um unusable space there's a lot packed onto this parcel and so if we're trying to carve out as many places for that five-year-old's birthday party um you know it's that you know an extra five ten feet of of usable space um could be an opportunity there we'd have to figure out um the the layout of those or another place for the bike racks um I'm not going to term that as a uh as a uh shell um I think it's something that could be thought of um I do think that you know knowing your work and yeah yeah well hey um we we don't know I just want to make sure yeah I know I just want to make sure I'm understanding your comment right so you're talking about the bike racks located on the west side of the property adjacent to the tot lot is that cool no no the west side of the marquee um sign so the main entrance there the marquee sign on the very eastern edge of the central part of the property um okay so that's why I'm mixing this up yeah so you've got three islands there you got the sign island you've got turf in the city island so that sign island well I just want to make sure I was writing down my comment totally great no and thank you for for clarifying because everyone's on on on board with that um so that island there um yeah I'm not going to you know if this is not a deal breaker for me it's just something to think about it could be an opportunity for just a little bit more space um to get to the fence um I'm all for uh for uh matching what is done around the property we've you know you know saying that if we are um conditioning a fence there to say met to to be um consistent with the approved senses that we have um uh approved before um there's that um I do I do feel that um that with with how responsive this applicant team is to both neighbors and to um our our concerns um I don't necessarily see them throwing up a slap-ash fence just to be done with the project I think it'll be done responsibly and well thought out um I'm I think that whatever they are going to eventually propose and construct will be durable um uh yeah I think that that can be um the more of a um a conversation as as as we sort of talked about before um I think matching uh being consistent um with the property um uh is is is the key concern for me um a concern also is the uh the area around the heritage tree it is a a lovely oak that's there um you know in terms of of construction details for a fence I don't um you know you know it's typically you know a third or half of whatever the height of the fences is you do underground to make certain sturdy um a four foot when I saw the the four foot recommendation that's a pretty that's a that's a beefy fence that things are not going anywhere um I do think it's a little um overkill um I think that you know that having that that third um of the height is would be sufficient um especially concrete footing um I do think that that the the landscape architect on board um is certainly going to have that in mind um but so consistency with with uh with the rest of the project um and the heritage oak concerns the layout there um the depth of the of the of the footings you know four foot you know because you have to dig out a massive hole there um for those footings anything near the drip line of that tree I'd be really concerned about um uh if it's you know a couple feet that's okay um two to three feet is fine and in my uh my book for um speccing fences for projects um uh I'm let's see Adam just to clarify you're saying yeah a four foot high fence near the heritage oak no underground two feet down okay that's what I thought I just want to make sure because primarily yeah yeah but I'm gonna make sure I'm hearing you're right yeah it's been concerned about the the durability and so the footing is it's a very much a concern um but uh yeah um a couple of concerns there um so you're saying it's two to three feet max in ground near heritage oak at under the drip line max right yeah yeah and um there is an arborist on board with this so um I think double checking with them is key I'm not you know I'm I'm not um intimately familiar with the site or the you know soils or everything you know that's you know that's one reason why we don't necessarily design things like that is because we're not the designers on board so um we have to um leave some trust there but we can say that we want a durable fence um so yeah but I guess true for for my um concerns consistency protection of the heritage oak um and having um you know a durable uh footing but not overkill um in terms of the lattice versus no lattice um uh I um I'm at you know somewhat agnostic about it again I'd go with the consistency we we have um uh added the lattice the lattice on the other fences around the site um we don't have the lattice I thought the no the the way that yeah the way the za resolution is written it just says solid eight foot fence yeah I guess I was going off of the pixelated um detail um that's in there so yeah the the the za condition is different than the design included which which is fine it's just the za condition has a it's an eight foot solid wood set to be clear if you're talking about consistency yeah yeah so you know consistency um there so um those are my thoughts as of now I don't have any other um concerns oh I didn't want to say I was glad very glad to hear about the easement for the school access I'm very very glad to hear that there will be access to the north so great thanks for addressing that because that was from something we brought up a year and a half ago so um yeah those are my thoughts and um maybe I'll have more thoughts on the fence when we bring it back around to everybody so thanks everyone very much everyone thanks Adam uh vice chair birch comments on the project yeah I'll really support Adam's comments around the fence and which if I read right it's let's get a consistent fence let's let's match the conditional use permit required fence for the other boundaries um to stay consistent I think if I understand right that fence is eight feet tall tell me if I'm wrong and that's going to kick it to a building permit which means it will be reviewed and the comments that we've made will go forward with it regarding footings and keep the arborist in clear contact with the um with with the planning review I'm sure the arborist would be in contact anyway so as far as the fence goes I think that's adequate I think we've covered it here um I do like the transitional style of the architecture I think that with the landscape um design leading up to the building the architecture is is really not um overstepping its bounds in this area which is extremely transitional in in every way whether it's you know how you look at the neighborhood what you look at is the different uh areas that have been constructed over the past 20 years so the transitional style was great for me I appreciate that um I think that the generous and creative use of open space on the project which was enhanced I really believe by some of our comments and then how the applicant responded to those very um in a really really well thought out way is is great I think the colors provide snap I think that with a landscape with a layer of landscape surrounding the project and the colors that do pop I think the project is going to um enhance the neighborhood I think it's really going to be something that's going to be interesting to look at there's multiple layers uh this is not a project that's just simply pushed out to the edges without thought I think that the the color scheme and the landscape work really well together and uh yeah I just I can't say enough about the applicant's response to our original comments and this was this was a really good project when we saw it it's been improved and I hear the same thing that you did Adam which was I hear from this applicant a a really earnest interest in building a great project in Santa Rosa so looking forward to seeing it go forward and uh get built and provide some of the housing that we need and and be a be a project that the community can be proud of uh in five years 10 years 20 years so thanks Michael uh board member Rick you comment I'm very much supportive of the kind of the of the project and I trust the judgments of the architects and and my colleagues on the board uh I get a you know I get a little bit perplexed I guess around the discussion we have around the fence when when the when the project really is about developing some housing that we desperately need in this community and so I'm I'm frustrated a little bit about about all of the time we spent talking about a damn fence around the project and so that's my my frustration in the sense that it's a good project it's well designed they when we did the conceptual review they took into consideration what we talked about and so I'm very much supportive and I I think they have extended themselves in a way that I think is is good and I just don't want us to get caught up in in some some some design stuff around a damn fence and so that's my that those are my comments thanks John um so I uh I I agree with uh Adam and Michael and John about the fence I think we can we can condition this fence here what I heard from everybody was um consistency across the property which I think would uh match what's going on with the architecture uh there's an architectural consistency across the project so why shouldn't there be an architectural consistency uh to the perimeter of the project um and uh I think there's a landscape consistency too right there's a design consistency through the entire project about how they've addressed the parcel and really maximized kind of uh some uses I think uh were hard to squeeze in there but they made it work um the tot lot area you know the playgrounds the community garden community building um in the previous design they had some like funky tucked-in parking that had you know created uh some kind of awkward asphalt concrete I think on the south side and by rearranging the buildings uh and opening up what Adam called islands that kind of plaza I guess maybe we'll call it with the islands they actually improve the project considerably I think personally um and so then also the nice addition of a couple of parking spaces on the road there it's fantastic so I have a question for Rick Hendricks since it's his detail um Rick on on the detail that's in the applicant presentation um what's the depth shown uh on that uh fence footing it looks like it says it's three feet which is okay yeah um which would as a board member member Sharon was saying is it's you know one-third or half the height that usually the fence is what we typically do um so and and typically we we do uh PT posts uh wood posts um and then redwood fancy is difficult but again if you stipulate something else we'll work with the applicant to get that done okay so um thanks Rick I appreciate that uh so it sounds to me like a robust design is already kind of in the package would everybody agree with that the only change I think that we should make is eliminate the lattice because that's what's in the zoning zoning administrator conditions and for consistency and so um is everybody okay with that for the fence okay so I believe the condition is shall provide eight foot tall redwood fence as designed solid redwood fence as designed uh on the northwest and south property line that's not about right is everybody okay so that's the shall and then the consider that I heard from yeah go ahead add it yeah make it a just a little addition to that I do want to um that just have something in there uh about the heritage treat the heritage joke on the south side that they're just just to have over some kind of um I don't know consideration about it I don't know if it could say in consultation with arborist store can can I excuse me can I interject some of the new conditions of the that were added uploaded at the you know 11th hour on the um were conditions pertaining to protection protective measures for the tree everything within the root zone will be hand dug arborist um overseeing uh the arborist is working with both the church and the applicant they've all determined what would best suit the tree and everybody has the same save the tree thought in mind and the other thing that I'd like to interject if I could share weigle about the eight foot fence is that we often um try to avoid eight foot fences right along uh streets because they're dominating features that's um kind of uh when it's just a fence and it goes to the zoning administrator that's one of the special fence findings so I think um if you could consider making that a six foot fence rather than an eight foot fence of the same design I think the because of the break um the the street distance of wind gate it creates a gap there so just a thought no that's a great thought Susie thanks that personally would be my that would be my preference I was I didn't want to mention to further muddy the waters I didn't necessarily think an eight foot was necessary but um and I think thank you for clarifying about the the um consideration for the tree um I did see that and especially the hand digging in the root zone so I think it's it's well in in hand but um if there needs to be some dispensation for that drew okay so I think there's actually maybe two conditions now to make it easy for staff so I think the first one is shall provide eight foot tall redwood fence as included in the plans currently something like that right on the north and west property line done and then the second one would be shall provide six foot fence of similar design with no lattice along the south property lines with consideration of the design of the fence around the heritage tree because I think how they cut the fence and all that good stuff each we just need to kind of wrap it up you know um and I trust rick uh that he's gonna do a good job and figure out the right solution um there and uh so I think we just put it in the uh I support that as the motioner excellent uh so uh second does the seconder support that friendly amendment right I also support it excellent all right and uh I think that wraps it up makes it real nice and easy slash complicated and then the other thing I heard from Adam um which I don't think I heard from anybody else but it it might be a consider and uh and it's just consider the location of the bike rack the eastern side of the property consider relocating the bike rack I guess I would consider relocating the bike rack the eastern bike rack consider relocating the eastern bike rack does that sound good yeah in in and and also activating part of that space you're the best way to say that I thought I thought more than being located and you were just talking about the use of the space overall yeah yeah yeah that could stay there maybe a move to the side or maybe there's two racks that go to the side something like that but I think that half to a third of that space I don't think we even need to say a measurement but just say consider activating the marquee sign island in the courtyard part of the marquee sign island in the courtyard yeah I would I'm I tend to disagree with that and the reason I say that is because they have a really nice big tree there and I think that was kind of the the design concept was to have that marquee with the the tree behind it as a nice backdrop right and so that I think that was the the design intent I mean that would be my interpretation so but I totally agree with kind of the rearranging potentially of the bike racks I think it may make sense to add them on the sides if we add a bench on the other side yeah under that beautiful tree something like that exactly a bench under there can be perfect so I would I would just say consider rearranging the bike racks to activate the marquee island I think that's a way to put it that's ongoing everybody specifically general motioner yeah yeah motioner do you like that motion or accept and the seconder all right awesome also accepts um okay and then I just have a couple of little things um and these are this is more note this is like some note cleanupy stuff when the applicant resubmits um on sheet L zero uh there's a tree in the middle of a building on the colored uh cyclane but then it's it's actually in the right spot on the black and white kind of funny um on l4 it's in the right spot but on l zero it's in the wrong spot so just make sure you update that so it's not in the middle of the building as somebody and then on that happens yeah I I know and I'm just picking on rick um and then on a 7.1 it says metail that of metal I thought that it's a huge deal um but you never know um a couple little minor little directions and with that I think we're done so Susie uh can I get a reread of the conditions just make sure we have them right and then we'll go to a vote well I will double check with the applicant reread or do you want to double check with the applicant uh re reread first okay and then we'll double check the applicant I what I got was really three three solid conditions I missed the the the tree the corrections that you want it sounded like you wanted some corrections to typos yeah they're just typo corrections yeah I was worried about it it's just they're not conditions it's I'm I'm telling it knowing the applicant just hearing that they're already and then yeah I'll just fix it they'll be done yeah when they reach at this point they've already corrected it knowing this applicant so anyways the three conditions that I have are consider reorganizing the bike rack to to activate the space near the marquee sign the second one is shall consider a six foot or shall I'm sorry shall construct a six foot fence along the southern property boundary to match the eight foot solid wood fence along the western and northern boundaries and then you added the condition shall provide an eight foot solid wood fence along the western and northern property lines but that condition is already on an approving resolution so it's it's redundant I can add it it's it'll get it's part of the design so I it's absolutely I think I think what's in yeah I think what's important is um so the the design that Rick proposed it's it's in here and so we're confirming that design lati yeah that that I think that's that's why it's important yeah that and I'll go ahead and include it um that that image preceded the condition so the condition that supersedes that I have a question on the southern property line fence is it for the entire southern property line or is it only for the property line that's adjacent to the church 1715 ridley shares a portion of that property line as well it's a little bit of an awkward distance because the western most side of the church property I don't know maybe it's about 10 or 15 feet does not share a property with the um with the project so I won't speak on behalf of the applicant what will happen in that corner but the the church may be asked to contribute a little bit for that to continue that section because it's not adjacent to the property I think um I know this is my opinion and and and the board is welcome to disagree with me but um the two parcels to the south so the one to the west is um the church and the one to the east we're gonna talk about the two parcels appears to be a single family dwelling so I would argue that both are dissimilar uses to the multi-family that's occurring on the parcel therefore that fence should just go all the way around okay okay the entire southern property line right that's how I wrote the condition with the yeah yeah with the exception of obviously the the ridley avenue drive right yeah right right right um don't want to fence on the drive aisle okay so uh thanks for rereading those things I appreciate it I want to go back to the applicant and make sure that these are doable we haven't done something to them that uh they'll kill their project uh so I want to go back to the applicant so it looks like Josh reads raising his hand Josh you should be able to unmute now um yes we agree with those conditions I think that's a those are those are improvements and I think they'll they'll work well on the site okay so with that I'd like to turn over to the recording secretary for roll call roll call vote sorry roll call vote um board member board member mcqueen hi board member Sharon hi uh vice chair birch hi and chair weigel and that passes unanimously so that's fantastic unanimous vote uh go forth applicant and build your project please and with that uh we will close item 8.1 and uh with it being two hours into our meeting right now I'd like to take a 10 minute recess for a bio break smack etc and so I'd like to come back at 6 50 so with that I'd like to take a recess if members of the design review board could turn their videos back on it is 650 looks like we're just waiting for vice chair birch and there are you sorry dog sitting duties no worries all right so with that everybody's back I'd like to reconvene the design review board and move on to item 8.2 which is a public hearing for stone bridge road duet homes mitigated negative declaration previously adopted design review 6611 stone bridge road dr 21-056 and with that um since it is a public hearing I'd like to go uh x part is the excuse me x part a disclosure real quick um so uh vice chair birch any x part a disclosure board member mckew no board member sharon none for me and no x part a disclosure for myself so with that I would like to turn it over to planner mike wixon or a staff report yeah thank you chair vital my name is mike wixon i'm contract planner with the city and i'll be making this presentation for you tonight so if we can put up the powerpoint presentation in a second here okay so the project itself as you mentioned is a series of duet homes and it's located at stone bridge road at the intersection of oakmont road or oakmont avenue we can go to the next slide please this image showing the location of the project site it's directly in the center there um and you can see oakmont avenue or oakmont drive and then also stone bridge road at the intersection and then the site is located at that northern corner around the site is some single family residential to the north I should say kind of the northeast there and then directly north is a commercial use it's an auto repair business to the south you can see the vacant lot and then south across kind of kitty corner across the intersection are some commercial service uses there and then on the west side of oakmont is a series of other duplexes that are also single family residents all the single family residences in in this area are one story if we can go to the next slide please there we go that star denoted where the project site was sorry so this slide is just showing the general plan land use designation which is the retail and business services land use designation it's a little unique for a residential project but the multifamily type use that this project consists of which is again it's a series of duet homes that those homes are considered multifamily and attached single family residential and as such can be permitted by conditional use permit in this particular land use and zoning category and that is what the planning commission had previous previously done with the conditional use permit associated for this project you can see it surrounding the project again to the north you can see the commercial actually it's i'm sorry it's the lower residential density land use and as well the yellowish color is also a low density residential land use the red color is more of the retail service commercial land use and i think that kind of covers the general plan land use so if we can go to the next slide please this is just showing the zoning for the site the zoning again matches pretty much the general plan land use itself that the zoning is a general commercial zoning category and as i mentioned this type of use required a conditional use permit that has been approved by the planning commission and you can see the other pd zoning surrounding the site to the north and to the west and then there's some r1 six zoning to the north and east and then an r3 zone kind of kitty corner to the east southeast as well as more general commercial zoning to the south and then if you can go to the next slide please again there's the star showing the project site um i wanted to bring up the fact that the project itself is not in a wildland urban interface area as it pertains to construction requirements for the building code we can go to the next slide please and i also wanted to bring up the point that it's outside of a high fire severity zone i mentioned before that it is in that resilient city overlay but there really was no fire damage on the site from any pre-existing structure it just happens to be in the rc zone that is that resilient city zone so in terms of how it's impacted by the mapping of the high fire severity zones it's it is outside of those zones if we can go to the next slide please the project site was actually created by a previous subdivision which was referred to as the meadows at oakmont and it's about a point the project site's about 0.75 acres so relatively flat it was one of two commercial sites that was created with a residential subdivision as well there were about 39 residential blocks and you can see them shown in this tentative map layout next slide please and then this this map was just meant to highlight i think the next slide will show the the red star there we go thank you so showing where the project site is this just shows the current layout of what what is what was the oakmont subdivision so you can see how the project has developed out with primarily single family homes and then the what are now general commercial and multifamily sites are yet to be developed and if you can go to the next slide please so as far as the project history of the site back in 2006 the city council approved the negative declaration and the general plan amendment and a rezone for the site which this site was actually larger site which was a 14 acre site a little bit more and it was referred to as the meadows at oakmont and then in 2008 the planning commission approved the mitigated negative declaration with that tentative map and a conditional use permit for the meadows at oakmont and that project included i mentioned 39 before it's 36 single family lots and then one multifamily lot and two commercial lots and so there was a previous mitigated negative declaration adopted for the project project still consistent with the concept of developing it in in context of commercial uses that are permitted by the cg zone and so therefore it's still consistent with what was done in the way of an evaluation at that time according to sequa on january 26 2021 pre application meeting was held with the applicant staff just kind of go over the project and discuss it and then on july 26 2021 there was a neighborhood meeting and no comments were provided at the time and what village association has given approval to the projects since then with a letter of support and that is included in the staff report on october 31 application was deemed complete and then basically started the processing and on december 14 2022 the so not long ago less than a month ago the planning commission approved the tentative map for this project as well as the condition conditional use permit and it was not i'll note it was for the use it was not what is normally considered for subdivisions of this type it was not for a small lot subdivision so it was a conditional use permit for this particular use in the commercial zone that's existing so if we go to the next slide please and now we're getting to the project itself and you can see the layout of the project the project is consisting of three duet structures basically each structure has two attached units each unit itself it will have a three bedroom two bath design a single car garage it will have 400 square feet of open space private open space for each lot that is being created the drainage on the site will be captured by storm beds storm detention beds that will be scattered throughout the project basically each lot will have its own stormwater retention bed the site also continues the landscaping that is along oakmont avenue and then it will also continue along stonebridge road the fencing along the project or around the perimeter of the project will be a six foot tall solid wood fence and that will match basically what's existing in the neighborhood right now and within that meadows project that I had referred to earlier you can see how the site is accessed it's a private road that will be 20 feet wide and it will come off stonebridge road and basically there will be parking on site for the single car garage plus a tandem parking place so that each unit will have two spaces directly on site the project will also provide some offsite parking along stonebridge road so there will be a total of 19 parking spaces provided it meets the requirements the minimum requirements for parking which are 15 spaces I'm trying to think if there is anything else to point out the the project will continue with the lighting along the street frontages that's consistent with what's there now and other than that the lighting itself will be kind of a standard residential lighting so if you can go to the next slide please the floor plans are put in front of you here they're basically it's the shelves the three bedroom two bath duplex unit the project is a single story consistent with architecture in the neighborhood if you can go to the next slide please and then here are the elevations of both of the types of units they're very minor changes between the two essentially buildings 100 and 200 are very very similar and rather than talk about the materials and colors up I'll go to the next slide which presents the materials I'm sorry presents a roof line and then it talks about the materials and colors so this is just showing the roof line has the primary roof line going across both units and then comes down on both sides with hip and then gable on the front to kind of bring it down to a pedestrian scale if you go back if you can go back please one slide and you can see the front porch is wrapped around the front of each unit that will be constructed and that's to give a eyes to the front and create some kind of active space towards the front where people can have eyes on the front yard so if you go to the next slide please and then go ahead go too forward I'm sorry maybe one back I think there should be a slide in there for the materials okay well I'll talk about the materials so the materials are in your package so the materials will be an asphalt composition roof it will be a stucco finish around the exterior the windows themselves will be kind of standard vinyl mill guard window and it also will include the wood painted wood trim and then the standard roll up garage doors the colors are earth tone colors a little bit darker but um anyway they're the earth tone colors are consistent with those colors used in the area as well as what's recommended for the oakmont village area if we go to the next slide please there we go okay so as I mentioned before there was a negative declaration adopted for the meadows project and the mitigation measures are incorporated into the project itself mitigation measures are included for archaeology noise and toxic hazards if we go to the next slide please uh and then in the sequa guidelines 156 15162 you find also that this project can also be found to be exempt from sequa um and so there's one other exemption this project fits for if you go to the next slide please um and if you keep going so these are the other two guidelines with which you can make the findings that the project is also exempt from further review from sequa one has to do with the consistency of the project with the existing zoning and community plan for a project for which an EIR was certified and then the other one is um and what I'm saying that EIR that would be the mitigated negative declaration and then the other exemption would be the sequa guidelines 15332 and it could be this that creates an infill exemption and again the project can make the findings that this would be consistent with an infill exemption so if you go to the next slide please so overall uh staff is recommending that the project is consistent with the design guidelines the general plan policies and the zoning standards that are uh found in the city's documents the details on that are outlined in the report and uh are included therein and so because of those reasons being consistent with those documents we're recommending that the design review board approved the the project itself with the conditions of approval that are presented in the resolution and if there's any questions beyond that I'd be happy to try and answer those for the design review board I know the applicant also has a presentation that they would like to go over uh as well and that would there are three people that have on board there that could speak to the project Dustin Maxim, Fantasia, and then uh the applicant Tim Massie so I believe Dustin Maxim would be the one to speak and do the uh applicant presentation that concludes my my presentation thank you Michael we appreciate that um so yeah let's go straight into the applicant presentation and it looks like uh we've got some raised applicant hands here and it looks like hey there we go there's the applicant presentation so with that we'll turn it over to the applicant hi good evening everyone can you hear me okay we can thanks hi my name is Dustin Maxim I'm a project manager and landscape architect with civil design and I'm here on behalf of our client Willow Glen Holmes um Tim Massie the project applicant is here as well that was mentioned and uh they're they're here to answer any questions that may come come up uh special thanks to Mike for doing such a great job in the introduction and for all his help so far with the project I know it's getting late so I'll try and go through our slides quickly if you want to go to slide two as Mike mentioned uh we have planning commission approval and we have the approval of the Oakmont Village Association uh the OVA their board as they say the smallest projects are the hardest part of um the OVA process uh was for us to go before the Oakmont architectural committee and receive their input and obtain their design review approval their review covered the architecture colors materials and landscaping um and originally it was our understanding uh that the project would go before the zoning administrator but because we're a bit over the 10 000 square foot threshold uh we get to spend the evening with you guys uh so if you want to go to the next slide um so our goal for this project in response to um neighborhood comments was to blend in contextually with the existing homes and provide a missing housing type uh that that's not found in the Meadow subdivision this picture is of the existing small lot houses next door it shows a very similar driveway configuration and arrangement to what we're proposing and our project will basically function in the same way as far as parking and access I can go to the next slide uh wha our architect is not here tonight so I'm going to do my best to give you an overview of their design uh again in order to blend in with the neighborhood context uh we've continued to use uh traditional architecture we're bringing in horizontal siding in the gables and we're incorporating stucco bodies and comp roofs so all the siding uh was asked to be non-combustible and the roofing to be class a for fire resistance that was a request from the architectural committee we've also kept with the neighborhood fenstration scheme we're using similar windows as was requested by them and lastly we brought in the porches on every unit so from our end to make this project unique and out of little flair we've gone with the dutched hip roof type it kind of it gives us the gables on the ends rather than the traditional hip roofs which you see down the street on the existing homes this break breaks up the roof mass along stonebridge road and it allows us to incorporate that horizontal siding above the contrasting band so the dormers above the garages were added to help break up the roof area but they're articulated to provide enough space for solar where needed again the color palette including roofing keeps with the neutral brown tones of the existing neighborhood uh but the contrasting trim and banding give us that little pop which which sort of updates the look in my opinion all these touches give a really a nod to the existing oakmont vernacular we'll see next slide so uh yeah we've expanded the existing i'm sorry we've expanded the corner porches and what this does is take advantage of the relationship between the units and stonebridge road um we've made the decision to stay away from stone veneer and to opt for a more elegant post design on the porches we felt that the cultured stone um that is seen everywhere nearby was starting to look a little bit tired in this context and a little bit overdone um so next slide and uh these are the colors and materials that went before the ova's architectural committee and that they have approved um next slide and uh okay regarding the landscape plants something i can finally talk about uh oakmont has developed a fire wise policy and they also have what's called a do not plant list and so even though as was mentioned this site is not higher fire zone and is not wooey uh we are happy to comply um the design incorporates gravel mulch around the perimeter of the homes and uh the plant selection in these areas um would be low-growing and either low fuel or uh sort of herbaceous low-admission species um since this is not a wooey zone the tree placement uh shown here is a bit of a compromise between defensible space and aesthetics and mainly for visual concerns so um um the the project will present to the neighborhood as a as really a deer resistant uh climate appropriate landscape uh one that emphasizes grasses and sort of billowing ground cover paired with accent species um the chinese pistachio uh matches the existing stone bridge street trees uh i think that's it next slide oh yeah okay in speaking with the neighbors um this corner lot parcel has been a bit of an eyesore to them and as a result there was a fair amount of uh committee interest in the plant palette so we've ended up with a palette that may need to be reduced a bit as we head into construction drawings um but it does reflect the plants desired in oakmont and it reflects their suggestions and the ova policies and it reflects willow um so next slide so regarding that palette um the landscape along oakmont drive will continue the existing streetscape and fencing um as seen to the northwest so that's picture in the top of the slide so that's to the north side of um the auto shop so we would do something similar to that uh at the request of the ova architectural committee um the bottom image is a portion of our conceptual plan it shows some of the landscaping um that was installed with the previous master subdivision and we are preserving that i can't say that it's doing well but um it's there and we're going to keep it and we're going to supplement it um and then lastly uh in the lower right there we are going to propose a tan split face cmu wall between our project and the oakmont garage auto shop and this is to separate the two uses and um uh the backside of that wall will be stuccoed on the private side to match the homes next slide okay that's it for me um so thank you so much for time and hopefully design review approval i say that pleadingly uh because i don't know what will happen on the oakmont side if we need to make any changes that they don't like so again thanks for your time and i'm here to answer any questions thanks dustin appreciate you um so with that um dustin is peter schmitt part of your um applicant team there no okay cool all right so with that uh i appreciate you um so with that i'd like to open the public hearing portion of the evening um so if you would like to make a public comment on this project please raise your hand in the zoom platform using the raise your hand button or pressing star nine on your phone um so this would be the time to raise your hand if you'd like to make a comment on the project and i'm seeing a hand so with that i will turn it over to the recording secretary thank you so much peter you should have a prompt allowing you to unmute and if you could please start by stating your name for the record yes i'm peter schmitt i'm president of the homeowners association of the meadows at oakmont which is the property adjacent to this development project and my question has to do with uh one of the final comments that was just made about the wall between this development and the auto center the wall uh immediately adjacent this property separates separating it from the uh the homes in in the meadows is a um has a concrete base and is a a wood a wooden fence and i'm wondering if the this plan calls for a similar fence along the the boundary between this property and the auto center all right um if that's that concludes your comments uh we'll we'll try to address that question when we bring it back to the board right any other public comment this evening i'm not seeing any further hands okay all right with that let's bring it back to the board let's close the public hearing and bring it back to the board and so um with that i think we should just try to answer the uh the public comment there for the fence and i am not seeing a fence called out on the site plan nor am i seeing one in the plan set uh can i dive in on that yeah go ahead dustin that's the that's me oh sorry i was trying to i'm trying yeah that was actually going to be my um question um and the first thing that kind of it caught my eye um so i'm glad that the uh public uh commenter um mentioned that um there it is called out on the plan um sheet three um on the landscape plan there um as a CMU wall just on that northwestern portion there by the parking lot and then the rest of the fences are wood so um and i'd like to piggyback on the the um the to hear from dustin about one you know the design intent there um but also it what my question for him related to the fence um is if that was uh dictated by oak months um uh as part of your review process or if you chose the CMU wall um and i think that would answer my question and the public commenter's question i can answer that now if that's okay um so in discussion with the auto uh shop owner and with the project planner um it was desirable to add that wall to separate the land uses and so uh we offered it up and we're happy to do it uh it's not listed the height uh on note five on sheet three because um it may have to do a slight amount of retaining at the bottom but it's going to be uh approximately six feet tall on the project side and maybe seven feet tall on the auto shop side and uh the tan split face which was what we offered up initially and and what seemed to be agreeable to everyone great thank you it says CMU stucco so is it a CMU so i'm hearing two different things so is this is it a CMU wall with a stucco applique or is it is is it a split flight sorry split-faced CMU block it's a split-faced CMU block facing the auto shop side and on the private backyard side the smooth side would be stuccoed to match the homes okay cool thanks i think that is any question um yes it does answer my question yeah and um yeah dustin thank you for that and thank you for providing all the context um for us um i do know that this is a tricky area to work in um and uh and thank you planner wixen for your informative um presentation i'll do it for my questions too even though you didn't call on me so that's okay i mean i was just addressing that one question from the public and you and it was your question so hey that works out um so uh no more questions adam for you okay uh michael any questions from you on the project don't had the same question just based on the um had that same question based on scene sheet 3 and not understanding just what that was i like do you like the idea that there's stucco on the resident side that's a pretty tony wall right there um you know again kind of like the last item that is a separation between uses and the and the the difference of the fence that is that is used is is a significant and and i think here a very well thought out solution i i hope that that is satisfactory to the member of the public um i think that it's anyway i'll get into comments later sorry um my my curiosity i would be terrified of the ova as well so i don't want to certainly don't want to be called on the carpet there um i i suppose these homes fall into the meadows hoa which is probably under the broader umbrella of an oakmont hoa so i think that a lot of the things that would be covered here would be very typical i'm really interested and i think it's just a matter of interest for me more than anything that it appears as though the owner of a home is going to have control of a very specific uh portion of their backyard uh and i'm i'm assuming that the that portion of the backyard that they're assigned as a patio tvd is going to face some fairly strict guidelines um it appears as though the um defensible space is very defined in the ova so i'm not really too concerned about anything to do with landscape it's just i'm interested in the fact that it would appear as though you probably get your patio staked out and you have to meet some requirements to you know use the right materials do the right thing and and the committee comes over and checks you out um i would i just a quick question to the applicant if that's how that works i can answer that uh so initially we designed this to adhere to um city of san jose small lot criteria and so those patios are designed to be the 15 foot square open space or 400 square foot open space requirement um so they are not going to be developer built and yes anything built within those areas would be um subject to the the meadows at oakmont uh and the oakmont village association guidelines and review well then i have no further comments thanks michael john do you have any questions of the applicant or staff okay you were muted but i saw i read your lips no questions or comments all right no questions or comments no questions okay um so uh i i see mr schmidt's hand back up we did close the public hearing um but he did not use his entire three minutes so uh how does the board feel about reopening the public hearing and granting mr schmidt his remaining two minutes okay all right let's reopen the public hearing here and we're going to give mr schmidt his remaining two minutes on the clock and so uh recording secretary if you could please uh give mr schmidt uh the privilege to speak okay you should be able to um unmute now yes thank you very much uh chair we're um in response to the question about whether or not these uh lots are a part of the meadows at oakmont the homeowners association they are not um uh tim massie and i are planning to initiate conversations about whether or not it may be appropriate to move them into our homeowners association but at this juncture they are not they're not referenced anywhere in our in our cc and ours um so there would be no requirement for any approval of any changes of landscaping or anything else to go through the meadows those would go directly to the architectural committee at the ova if anybody has any questions about um the association and the relationship with these six uh properties i'd be happy to try to address them in the time i have left all right thank you for that mr schmidt we appreciate you um so with that we're going to close the public hearing again and we'll bring it back to the board and let's see here i was the one that was left with questions i don't have any questions i just have much comments um so that being said um let's go ahead and uh move on to uh a potential motion so i'm looking for a motion from the board uh to either approve the project approve the project with conditions or deny the project or you know continue the project to a date that's another option but uh let's not do that one i'll make a motion to uh approve the resolution the design review board of the city of san rosa granting design review approval for the stone bridge due at home so six unit attach single family residential project located at 6611 stone bridge road ap number 016-860-037 file number dr 22-056 prj21-022 and wave the reading of the text thanks vice chair birch i'm looking for a second on that motion second all right thank you board member mcquee for the second and with that uh we'll go to comments and so i will go to board member sharon for comments on the project and i gotta keep an eye on board member mcquee apparently um i beat you thank you john um i yes thank you applicant team for bringing this to us and um proposing um some lovely improvements to currently vacant lot so i appreciate the um the the the aim of what you're trying to do in the scope um you know i think that this is a um a a architectural form that uh yeah we could deal with more of um and in this part of town as well i think um just a little bit of increased density is a good thing um yeah and this is an interesting one for us we don't get too many projects at this scale um and so um good one for for us to chew on a little bit um uh as far as my um my thoughts on the architecture and their proposal um i i i appreciate the the simplicity of what you're proposing um i i think that you're dealing with an interestingly shaped site and you've got um i appreciate your your layout um as far as the uh the landscaping and and the general layout there um um yeah i uh i i i did see some of these these backyard areas and and see that they're you know pretty pretty bare bones and was wondering about having more um more landscaping trees there but i also um hear what you're you're saying um and you know i know i've done project work in this this part of town as well and it's pretty um constrained and prescribed and so you you know you're working with what you got um and so um i feel like uh what you're proposing is actually um a a good layout um uh you know good use of space um i appreciate the plant palette um i'd also know that that's pretty constrained as well for this part of town but i feel like you've chosen um uh some some nice and interesting species um good mix of structural plants um beautiful flowers and also i appreciate the sensory plants you've included there too with a number of smelly plants too the daffy and the sarca cook are are great choices um um and uh as far as the uh the architecture um i think that um that in this case uh simple is is better um and you've provided a non-fussy um set of buildings that do fit into as the as you mentioned you know the existing oakmont vernacular um and so um i don't have too too much or anything to say really on the architecture um uh um yeah that the the wall um and uh and the wall and the fence and so sorry john we're going to talk about fence again um the uh uh yeah the the the concern that i that i had with seeing that cmu wall is is of course adding the you know another material having wood um and concrete there um i do think that your uh your explanation for you know that design intent with one it's it was in discussion with ova about what to do but also importantly with the neighboring business owner if if that is something uh you know my preference would be for wood all the way around one material um to go there it's one softer it's warmer um especially on the inside for the the the one residences one and two there rather than looking out onto a stucco wall to be looking out on wood it's a little bit warmer stucco is not a you know a deal breaker um but i think that your explanation with um the the neighboring business owner um and ova um i'm okay with with the uh the cmu wall that is you know if all parties aren't on board with that as well um so uh i think that that will um wrap up my comments um again thank you for bringing this and thanks for some innovation and thanks for bringing some multi-family housing um to this part of town um thanks very much i look forward to hearing with my fellow board members today thanks adam uh board oh sorry vice chair birch comments you bet uh again i think really uh a really quality project um a lot a lot of different uh a lot of different uh folks to answer to you here and i and i know that the quality of what gets what gets done in this area is really good and the eyeballs on on the outcome and the eyeballs on the ongoing project are always really good um i you had me at no cultural no cultured stone so um you pretty much from there on and it was easy sailing for you um but i do really like the corner corner porches and the posts and the white accent um i do think those are really pleasing entries um the shape of the site gave you an interesting opportunity to create not a driveway into a set of homes which was in the example you showed but but it's just it's just open enough that it feels like you're pulling into um a kind of a special court the shape is nice it's just a little bit bigger it terminates and the two porches and the landscaping at the end and i just think you took really good advantage of uh of what you were what you were given and instead of trying to sort of fit more on or do whatever you you left you left some room for the project to breathe a little bit and i think it's really pleasing so uh no um no concerns here about what you're gonna do going forward the design is fantastic and those are my comments thanks michael and uh board member mccune i very much supported with the project i like the design and i support the comments of my colleagues and so those are my comments thanks john um so that just leaves me i guess um so i like the design if it were only for one building i think each building should be a little bit different a little bit different flair that's the way the rest of the neighborhood is um if you look at um you know the single-family residences to the west the single-family residences to the north they're all kind of variations on a theme which is it you know it's a good thing and so these three kind of all being the same um is a little out of place for me um so contextually it doesn't fit within um what's going on with the rest of the area around um the other thing is i would say that with the exception of the front elevation the other three of the excuse me my goodness the other three elevations are uh flat um and i only say that because the the balance of the houses around uh also kind of they're not flat like this um i think probably in the back they are but the sides are not flat there's a little bit of definition and i know you're locked in a little bit um with your tentative map um so that may be a little bit of a challenge um but honestly i feel the like the the back and the two sides or there's just a little bit missing in terms of all four sides of the building being addressed um and i'm i don't really know what the solution is uh but again they just feel a little flat to me whereas the contextually the the the balance of the houses are not flat on on the two sides i would i would absolutely say probably 99 percent of the houses in the back are totally flat and and that's okay um so i think one way to address uh the one way to address the the kind of variations on a theme would be perhaps to omit the go on one of the homes and go to a a siding product um or or board and baton but hardy so it's fiber cement so it meets the you know ignition resistance requirements um and so you could kind of have like a little bit of a crass mini type one and so i would recommend if you went that route then you could change the the porch columns along with that in a craftsman kind of flair and so again stay away from the cultured stone stay away from that uh that stone base veneer that's kind of existing everywhere um and then the other two could absolutely be stucco like like they are um but but vary them in color so one could absolutely be this palette that you have here i think it's nice but then another one could be a slightly different palette and frankly you could do away with um the the kind of the band and then the the siding on that one maybe so it's a little bit different maybe kind of Spanish it up a little bit if you will um and in terms of the use of this the stucco in terms of like a Spanish vernacular and just go stucco all the way up and maybe go with a creamy stucco in that in that regard and so if you were going to do that then i would change the columns and the brackets uh to a more natural wood and uh also provide a little bit more um flair i was kind of doodling here what that might be um you know so it's it's got a little bit more relief uh with the wood as opposed to being so tied up and then like i said leave leave one just like this um i'm not sure the dormers on the front are doing anything um but what might be kind of cool were it me uh is if you enlarge the dormers a little bit and then that way you could actually provide like a little bonus room or something up there that you can access through a ladder in the garage or something that'd be kind of crazy for a tenant to you know for a homeowner to tinker with later as it stands right now that dormer really all it's doing is it's it's it's a vent at the end of the day it's really not doing much else it's not doing much architectural lifting it's not doing much um you're not you're not getting anything out of it just in my opinion so i'd be okay with you just not doing them um i really like the plantings i think the planting pallet is really nice the way that it's planted is is very nice um i agree with michael the the site plan is it's doing a lot with a little um so again wouldn't change any of that uh and then uh obviously you know we're missing uh an actual design of the cmu uh fence and then we're missing an actual design of the wood fence um you know and it says in here six foot fence i'm assuming that's a you know a redwood six foot hide good neighbor fence but it would be nice to have it as as part of the package um but beyond that uh you know nice layouts good spacing for the most part in in the bedrooms and whatnot for uh duplexes of this size um i think that would be it for my comments so so we'll bring it back here and um we'll see if the board agrees or disagrees with me um and we'll go from there so i don't know uh what do you think adam very couldn't find my mouse for a second um yeah no i think your your comments are spot on um and i really like your comments about the architecture um as well um that's for what you say yeah i would i would entertain it consider for you know as much as little as as little as maybe some color some color variation to some thematic variation um as a as a consider and see what see what the applicant thinks so so how would you feel about uh a shell that is color variation than a consider that is a thematic variation and then that way we're being clear that they're not all the same just by color which i think actually will add value to them frankly um as a selling point to whomever buys them and then the thematic component you know it would be a more consider like hey if you guys want to take a stab at it great if not at least we got the color variation i'm all i i i hear you i think we should ask the applicant about the um the ova i and that sounds great yeah i think that'd be fun all right uh john any thoughts on all that no not now all right so let's ask the applicant so uh dustin has his hand raised and so we'll turn it over to him and hear what he has to say hey guys um what i would respond with is that uh we've we've really been through the process with oakmont uh both with the board and the architectural committee uh we've done a lot of work with them and and sort of just reflects what we want to build and their desire for the space uh it may be slightly different than what's in the neighborhood now but i think that's a little bit of the intent and uh will make the product better um like was noted this this site is sort of um a little community it opens up as you enter and to have all the homes matching uh is a design element that brings cohesiveness and uh a little bit of a village feel and that's what we're going for uh as you walk up that driveway uh you will experience uh the three uh buildings together and so that's our intent and um that's what's been presented and uh if we can i hear what you're saying i respect your opinions and i think they're great uh but if we can i'd like to continue on the path we've set and honor the wishes of the neighborhood hey drew i yeah go ahead Michael you know i feel like the context of oakmont is so different than um than what we are used to working with here especially in the past four years since we we've sort of you know we've been removed from certain projects anyway oakmont's a bit different i think too there's a mentality and and and i'm not checking you on this i'm just saying i think there's a mentality that doing three built three duet buildings versus doing eight you know buildings that range between 12 and 20 units you know i think it's just it's just a different thing you know i'm comfortable letting these guys run with something that's got a consistent design theme especially if they've been through that part that's just that's just my two cents it's it's um yeah i mean i appreciate and understand your comment i'm just i'm just not a hundred percent sure it's the hill i die on for for the three buildings here in oakmont it's just a different context too so i i could look at it both ways i guess maybe the question i would have is so are the duets for sale or is it a rental community that may help me a little bit they are for sale units so each law is fee simple for sale okay yeah and so the reason i ask that is kind of uh there's there's two reasons um so there's a design guideline about uh personalization and it talks about provide opportunities for residents to add their own touches to their exterior of their units for example so on and so on and so forth allow them to express themselves right so it talks but and that's kind of in a multifamily context right um which is fine this is sort of multifamily sort of kind of uh since they are duets but at the same time i think here's the other thing i guess that i'm thinking of if there is no HOA governing these buildings and maybe there will be but let's say i don't know know john john and jane doe by building one and they're like man we hate this brown and they have no one to answer to and they're like we're going to paint it purple then they're going to paint it purple you know what i mean um and so uh i think um i guess it's kind of where i'm coming from uh i guess i'm just thinking about it like long term in many ways uh as as the units get lived in and and they change owners and what have you they're going to get painted they're going to get adjusted changed modified if there's no ccrs or hoa governing them um in a just to interject if you can hear me sorry not sure go ahead yeah this is under the master hoa the oakmont village association that covers every home in the oakmont area um so any changes to the color would have to go back through the architectural committee um and would have to follow the hoa guidelines so it's all regulated yeah i i totally get that i'm i guess what i'm just saying is if somebody was hellbent on painting their building purple they would go through the process and they would ram it down the processes through i'm not saying that that's the solution by any means uh i guess i'm just saying that um i think providing and again maybe this is my own personal uh architectural thought is that providing options initially tends to prevent those sorts of things down the road but um i'm certainly uh an agreement that if you guys don't want to run through the ova again and you've got what you have i think i i'd want to condition it with a bunch with some considers so they're there and uh then you guys can and can go go go uh proceed um if that makes sense absolutely thank you um so then so we've got a consider i think we've got two of them consider uh varying uh color palates and then consider varying um architectural vernacular theme themes i guess would be two of them and then as we don't have a design for the two fence types uh that would be a shell that would need to be included in the final package to staff yes that's agreeable to us for sure excellent all right so we've got shall include uh six foot high all wood good neighbor fence design and shall include cmu and stucco fence design to uh uh what is it auto shop property to the north so does that sound good to everybody those four conditions so i don't know if michael uh got the the good read those back or or no michael but the sorry the uh planner wixen michael wixen if he was taking notes you scared me uh you scared me sorry yeah michael's right uh yeah so i have those as um two two uh considers uh that the applicant consider architectural vernacular themes and that the applicant consider various color palates uh and then that the applicant shall provide details for the six foot tall good neighbor fence to the east and shall provide the details for the cmu fence uh to the north uh uh planner wixen i would say um i would say the uh details for the all fences um not just okay to the east because there is the one on the west side as well behind the behind the true the frontage trees i don't want to got it and that looks sounds great the motioner accepts the uh the friendly amendments and then uh the second or john you do you accept the friendly amendments and i accept the friendly amendments as well awesome so it sounds like we are ready for a roll call vote so with that i would like to go to the recording secretary for a roll call vote thank you board member mickey hi board member sharon hi vice chair birch hi and chair weigel hi right and that passes unanimously all right i'd like to thank the applicant and uh contract planner wixen thanks so much and uh please go forth and and build the three duets and oakmont it looks like it's the last parcel waiting for some love right there um all right so with that we will close item 8.2 and we will go to item 8.3 item 8.3 is a concept design review mcm at santa rosa not a project because it hasn't gone through the sequel process yet design review 3991 fastball road dr 22-047 so as i mentioned earlier i have to abstain from this project due to the fact that it is immediately adjacent to a project at our architecture firm here and so with that we need a motion to continue this item to a date certain and it is my understanding from senior planner nicholson that that date is february 2nd i'll make a motion to continue uh item 8.3 um the concept design review for mcm at santa rosa to a date certain um uh being february 2nd the meeting of the design review board excellent can i hear a second on that oh second that excellent um and looks like we have a raised hand from dan hail um and so uh amy do we know if dan is a member of the project team or perhaps a member of the public wishing to speak on the item yes i believe uh dan is uh part of the design team and i i think he may have had a question about just the best way to get in touch with each of you i think um vice chair birch had a suggestion that maybe you share some feedback with the design team so i'll i'll stop talking so dan can maybe sure um so okay with that um michelle if you could grant dan speaking privileges that'd be fantastic good evening everyone we can hear you thank you um quite quite a wait for a continuance but i know just how the process works so appreciate you taking uh my question um it was we obviously are disappointed for being continued for a second um month but we understand the conflict of interest and we understand new board member or members are joining so that's great so we look forward to presenting on the second but i believe there was uh comments from the first meeting last month that um if we would reach out a couple of the members had some thoughts that they would share with us that we might consider and potentially respond to um at our meeting so i've i know uh this is not your day job so i i appreciate what you guys do um i also know that the weather has been really bad um everywhere but particularly up in santa rosa in the last four weeks but i really haven't had much luck getting through to you i know drew you and i responded and i believe adam and i had a short email exchange so i'm wondering is there a better way than the city email to get a hold of you um we would like to talk to you if you're still interested uh if you prefer to wait until the meeting in two weeks just let me know and i'll quick bother you so that's that's kind of where i'm at i appreciate your time and and sure your responses so thanks dan i appreciate that yeah so dan uh just so everybody knows dan did email me um and i responded i said hey i can't come on on your project um but um so i think uh i let's just go quick around uh what may be the best way and uh obviously don't like go sharing your personal phone number anything what i'm gonna ask dan uh what i'm actually gonna ask amy nicholson is um depending on how uh uh vice-chair birch and board member hu may want to be contacted i would recommend going through amy um because amy has our personal cell phone numbers and stuff like that uh so i was just gonna ask quickly uh if michael would prefer you know his city email on his ipad or if he would like to be called it would be a phone later um and and so and it would if it was uh okay with amy um if dan if amy could be the in between um so uh vice-chair birch how would you prefer to be contacted ahead of the february second meeting yeah first let me say that uh dan i did receive your emails between the holidays and unscheduled uh week-long absence since the holidays which you can see probably where where i am given that um i have not been able to respond i've seen your i've seen your notes i i believe i left a message on your voicemail uh with my cell number and and i will um i will respond again uh my comments don't don't relate to the anything about the project that i would uh that would be conversation that the other board members wouldn't hear it was really just about the vitality of the presentation to bring us enough information from it it's a it's a strong it's a good presentation from a very high quality firm but it just it needs it needs some body there's some there's some things that i feel like and so it's not comments about the project it's it's comments about um the vitality of the information for us to consider and but i'm happy to talk to you about it i will send another email back um and i i think i took your number your office number off your title block from the email that i did receive so i'll i'll be in touch okay excellent and then um board member mckew uh how would you like to be uh contacted your city email or another methodology city email okay cool so uh dan if you could just maybe ping john again um on his city email that'd be great and adam sounds like you've already talked to dan so that's great yeah we have and dan i'll i'll respond to end those days still not work potentially for me next week at the end of the week but i'll i'll respond to you um we'll we'll send something thank you and uh real quick here it's back on me a little bit i've been out of town and i have not been checking my voicemail at work so michael uh i apologize but i look forward to talking we're we're all in the same boat we're doing the same thing all right thank you guys i look forward to talking to you and also look forward to presenting uh in a couple weeks perfect thanks yeah thanks for working out dan yeah and i would very much agree with uh you know uh vice reberch's comments in terms of vitality um he and i tend to be on the same page um on this type of stuff um and and i think his comments will really help your project uh get really meaningful commentary and and help hopefully move you through the process uh with some relatively ease and so i would i would take uh take his comments uh to heart as they're they're gonna be great comments and they're gonna help you out um so he is because this is this is your second time around right michael and you were on the board for i don't know six eight years previously something like that so yeah um he's a great resource so with that we need we now need to take a vote on the motion we just uh put on the board there so i will turn it back over to uh the recording secretary for a roll call vote to continue the motion to a date certain i'm sorry to continue the item to a date certain of February 2nd board member mcqueen i board member Sharon hi vice chair birch hi and chair weichel i have to abstain oh that's right i apologize it's okay but we still but we still have we still have a majority so it's all good yes thank you so the motion passes to continue to a date certain with three eyes no nose and one um one abstention so that being said we are now on item nine and wouldn't you know it it's a o'clock so uh we stand adjourned see everybody in a couple of weeks thanks a lot everyone good night