Agenda Item 1
Design Review Commission Meeting
Location: Novato City Hall, 901 Sherman Avenue
February 15, 2017
MINUTES
922 Machin Ave
Novato, CA 94945
415/899-8900
FAX 415/899-8213
Present:
Patrick MacLeamy, Vice Chair
Michael Barber
Joe Farrell
Beth Radovanovich
Mayor
Denise Athas
Mayor Pro Tem
Josh Fryday
Councilmembers
Pam Drew
Pat Eklund
Eric Lucan
Absent:
Marshall Balfe, Chair
Staff:
Steve Marshall, Planning Manager
Hans Grunt, Senior Planner
Matt Gilster, Planner II
www.novato.org
City Manager
Regan M. Candelario
CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL:
The meeting was called to order 7:30p.m.
APPROVAL OF FINAL AGENDA:
M/s: Farrell/MacLeamy: 4-0-1
PUBLIC COMMENT: None
CONSENT CALENDAR:
1.
APPROVAL OF DRC MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 16, 2016 (MBAL,
MBAR, JF,PM,BR)
M/s: Radovanovich/Barber: 4-0-1
2.
APPROVAL OF DRC MINUTES OF DECEMBER 21, 2016
(MBAR,PM,JF)
M/s: Farrell/Barber: 3-0-2
PUBLIC HEARING:
02dm1517
1
CONTINUED ITEMS: None
NEW ITEMS:
3.
BAHIA HEIGHTS (MG)
CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
P2015-084; DESIGN REVIEW
P2016-096; TENATIVE MAP
P2016-097; PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
P2016-098; MASTER PLAN
Consider a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council regarding the
site plan, architecture, building massing, and preliminary landscaping plan for the
development of an 8.6 acre vacant hillside parcel with 9 for-sale single family homes. Homes
will be single or two story, between 1,935 to 3,500 square feet in size, and will be between 21
and 31 feet in height. Located in Bahia at the end of Misty Court, Novato, CA 94945, APN:
143-272-07.
Planner II Matt Gilster presented the staff report and gave an overview the previous Design Review
Workshop and revised project plans. Staff described the entitlement process forward and
recommended that the Commission formally recommend approval of the project to the City of
Novato Planning Commission and City Council.
The applicant Aaron Roden of Ryder Homes gave a presentation which gave a brief overview of
the proposed project and described the various interactions he had with neighbors surrounding the
project site, and described the range of revisions made to the site, and home designs in response to
the concerns raised by neighbors, including the elimination of second story windows and elevation
changes, elimination of the rear deck on lot 5, and retention of existing trees of concern
surrounding the home sites. The applicant also described site plan revisions that were made in
order to address Commission comments that retaining walls should be eliminated or reduced.
The project architect gave a presentation which reviewed the revisions to the home designs,
including reductions in the size of the home footprints to facilitate greater setbacks from
surrounding homes, a completely revised color palette of the homes to be more muted and
represent natural colors, materials of the homes including 24 inch board and battens siding and
stucco walls, and fenestration of the homes including the elimination of some windows to ease
neighbor privacy concerns.
Commissioner Mcleamy then opened the project for public comment.
Public Comments:
Candy Jordan, 521 Malobar Drive: Described the concerns she had when viewing the story
poles behind her home. Concerned that the two story home proposed on lot 9 will create a large
02dm1517
2
wall behind her property blocking the sunlight. Expressed interest in having Commissioners out at
her house to view the story poles.
Charles Thompson, 700 Albatross Drive: Wanted to voice his concern that the proposed project
was located inside of the Bahia Subdivision and therefore must be subject to the Bahia HOA
bylaws and CC&Rs. He also wanted to ensure that the project come before the Bahia HOA
Architectural Review Board before the final design details were approved. Voiced a concern
regarding the community mailbox proposed to be placed at the bottom of Misty Court and who
would be responsible for maintaining it. Also recommended that the applicant provide a public art
piece at one of the parks within the HOA.
Susan Shea, 672 Santana Road: Explained to the Commission that she lived across the view shed
from the proposed homes and has a direct view of the project site from her home. Expressed
concerns regarding the need for a successful landscaping plan to soften the exposure of the
proposed hillside homes from distant vantage points to the southeast and questioned the removal
of onsite trees. Recommended that the applicant include landscaping to soften the appearance of
the development and keep the view of the hillside development from offsite homes in mind when
developing the landscaping plan.
Commissioner Mcleamy closed the public hearing and opened the discussion to Design
Review Commission Feedback:
Commissioner Questions:
Commissioner Farrell-Asked if all of the roofs proposed are Standing Seam Metal Roof.
The applicant responded by confirming that all proposed roofs were composition shingle with
standing seam metal roof accent elements.
Question on the driveway layouts and why lots 2, 7, and 1 have crooked driveways.
The applicant responded by informing the Commissioners that the site plan had to be altered to
reduce retaining walls and pull houses as far away as possible from the neighbors. The result is
driveways that are not straight in relation to the street on lots 2, 7, and 1.
Commissioner Radovanovich - Wanted to clarify that the project would return to the Design
Review Commission for final details if it was allowed to move forward to the Planning
Commission.
Staff confirmed that if the project moved forward to Planning Commission and City Council the
project would return for final detailing to the Design Review Commission.
Commissioner Barber- Asked staff if the easement at the top of Laguna Vista Drive was an
existing easement and if not, how would the easement be created.
Staff responded by explaining that the easement was not existing and it would be created by a
formal request and Council Action.
02dm1517
3
Question to the applicant on why existing trees are proposed to be removed between lots 2 and 3
and lots 3 and 4.
The applicant responded by explaining that the trees to be removed were shrub trees and not
attractive or of retainable value.
Asked what the average slope of the Misty Lane extension was.
The applicant responded that the proposed average slope of Misty Court was 18%.
Commissioner Mcleamy- Explained that the topsoil on the site had been removed as a result of
the previous work and asked what the plan was to introduce viable landscaping back to the site.
The applicant’s landscape architect answered the question by describing the process of testing the
soil on site before installing landscaping and if needed introducing nutrients needed to allow for
plant vitality.
Summary of Commissioner Comments:
Commissioner Farrell Thanked the applicant for doing such a great job in communicating with the surrounding
neighborhood.
 Was not impressed with the designs of the homes, felt that the homes were cookie cutter in
appearance and were plain vanilla and not original or interesting architecturally.
 Noted that the architectural labels do not seem to relay what the actual homes look like,
using the example of the Neo-bungalow and Contemporary Farm House labels of the
designs.
 Noted that true bungalows are 1 -1.5 stories only.
 Recommended that Plan 2B should remove the proposed roof dormer.
 Mentioned that the board and batten siding should really be reduced to 16 inch on center
which would create a much more quality appearance of the homes.
 Mentioned that the larger square footprints of the homes and resulting tall roof elements is
not ideal for hillside development.
 Felt the landscape plan was lacking but agreed with the species list and the fact that the
plant pallet included native drought tolerant plants.
 Felt that the overall architecture was not the best work that could have been done by the
architect and is disappointed in the design of the homes.
02dm1517
4
Commissioner Radovanovich Agreed with Joe that the architecture of the proposed homes was not ideal.
 Was not happy with the volume of space proposed over the great rooms of the homes.
 Explained that by removing the windows on some of the elevations the resulting elevations
were brutal/stark in appearance.
 Recommended that instead of removing windows completely the windows could be
replaced with high windows/transom windows or opaque windows.
 Felt that the color pallets all looked the same as presented on the display and concerned
that when viewed from the distance all of the homes may look like the same color and
material.
 Recommended stepping back some of the second story side elevations.
 Recommended reducing the roof lines and slopes to bring in more of the second story and
reduce overall mass.
Commissioner Barber Stated that the overall project site is too steep for the proposed development which creates
a situation where it feels like the homes are being forced onto the building pads.
 Stated that he felt the sidewalks would not be used due to excessive slope.
 Agreed with his colleges on being disappointed with the overall design of the homes.
 Stated that he cannot support the project and does not see how he can make the findings
that the homes meet the housing design principles outlined in the Novato General Plan
Housing Policy 3.3 as the homes are not unique to their individual lots and the façade of
the homes are dominated by large garages, and there is not enough articulation in home
design.
 Stated that he did not see an effort to step back the second story elevations as he had pointed
out at a previous workshop.
 Asked if the location of the water easement at the top of Laguna Vista Drive could be
moved down the street in order to preserve the 11 California Blue Oaks that are proposed
to be removed in order to install the water line. If they cannot be preserved than there needs
to be mitigation/replanting for the oaks.
 Commented that some of the landscape choices such as Lavender and Roses are short lived
and should be rethought. He also wanted to see a more detailed landscaping plan.
 Stated that the proposed color board was ok.
02dm1517
5
 The neighbor fences should be reduced to 6 feet in height, as 7 is too high.
 The homes are too tall, with one home over 30 feet in height.
Commissioner Mcleamy Thanked the applicant for his work reaching out the neighbors.
 Explained that while the project site is steep and difficult the development should be
commended due to the fact that the hillside was setup for development and never
completed.
 Stated that the current hillside is a scar on the land and that the proposed project will
improve the existing conditions on the project site.
 Does not think the development of the site should be precluded due to the fact that the site
is steep.
 Recommended that the applicant meet with the Bahia HOA architectural review board as
soon as possible.
 Shared the idea of removing the sidewalk which would allow for more landscaping.
 Stated that he was willing to allow the project to move to the next level however he would
like to see the project return to the Design Review Commission for review of the final
landscaping plan and see the implemented architectural changes recommended by the
Commission.
 Agreed with his colleges on the recommended architecture revisions for the homes.
 Wants to see the Commission’s comments be incorporated into the architectural plans for
the homes, including stepping back the side elevations, mitigating the apparent height of
the homes, and thus supports the formation of a design subcommittee to help the applicant
address the design concerns.
Senior Planner, Hans Grunt requested a 5 minute recess before the Commission makes a motion.
Commissioner Mcleamy called for a 5 minute recess.
After the Commission reconvened Senior Planner, Hans Grunt presented two options for the
Commission.
Option one is to formally recommend approval of the project with the design changes
recommended by the Commission to be incorporated in the project as conditions of approval.
Option two is to continue the item and at the pleasure of the Commission form a subcommittee of
two commissioners to advise the project’s architect, if requested, on appropriate architectural
02dm1517
6
revisions and landscaping before returning to the Commission again for a formal recommendation
to the Planning Commission and City Council.
The Commission moved to approve option two and continue the item with Commissioners Farrell
and Mcleamy to form the subcommittee with Commissioner Barber as a reserve subcommittee
member.
M/s: Farrell/MacLeamy: 4-0-1
PROJECT DESIGN WORKSHOP: None
GENERAL BUSINESS: None
ADJOURNMENT:
02dm1517
The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
7