Corte Madera Inn - Good News - July 11 Planning Commission Meeting Summary

Good News! Thanks to all who signed the petition and registered their concerns and to all who attended and spoke at the Planning Commission meeting. Below is a summary by community member Peter Hensel, as posted on NextDoor, of the Tuesday evening meeting. ---- Planning Commission Gets Tough On CM Inn Rebuild---No “Convenience Store Decision” Finally, after three years---gasp!!!---last night 7-11 the public’s voice was clearly heard. And Planning Commission Chair Peter Chase diplomatically directed Reneson Hotels back to the drawing board to redesign a new version of their Corte Madera Inn Rebuild project which both breaks up the chunky mass of their Marriott prototype hotel building and pays due respect to land and environment. Hoooray!!! Chase, ever the diplomat, thanked Reneson for its long-standing presence in town and contributions to the community but suggested they look towards Larkspur’s elegant new Rose Lane development to derive fresh architectural vision and inspiration. Chase postponed the next hearing to a time yet to be determined when Reneson submits under new guidelines, if and when Garrett Grialou & company chooses to do so. More than a dozen spoke intelligently and passionately about why Corte Madera, post WinCup, needs architecture with vision---as opposed to corporate brand prototype---and why the existing wildlife pond should be preserved and restored from its degraded condition due to lack of owner maintenance. But it was Commission Vice Chair Phyllis Metcalfe who stole the show and drew hearty applause by reading a manifesto she had crafted on the need for a new and innovative approach to planning projects submitted in Corte Madera. Commissioner Metcalfe's remarks are reprinted below. NEED FOR CREATIVE, FUNCTIONAL DESIGN Design decisions we make now can either enhance or undermine our community in ways that can affect Corte Madera for many years. Approved projects should show creativity not become part of the run-of-the-mill architecture that we see too often. Good design decisions are needed if we are to maintain the attributes that brought us here. I spent a weekend going through two large boxes that hold an accumulation of three-years’ worth of studies, plans, renderings and other paperwork for this hotel rebuild project --including community comments and the points made by Bob Silvestri in the Marin Post. I read through the notes I had taken during hearings and re-read our current ordinances as respects setbacks, lot coverage, height limits, floor area ratios, etc. and the variances needed for this project’s approvals. I also reviewed all the paperwork on the “pond,” its current condition and its role as a habitat and learned more about widgeon grass than I ever wanted to know. I found there is just one thing upon which everybody agrees – there is a demand for quality hotel rooms in our immediate area. During the project’s review, there have been improvements and upgrades. The applicants have agreed to pay for several infrastructure upgrades of their own property and the property surrounding it. However, the building remains an uninspired u-shaped configuration because of Marriott’s requirement that a dual-branded hotel must have a centrally located single lobby. The applicants will not consider a single-branded hotel even if all the rooms were configured for long-term occupancy. And will not consider a different affiliation nor a stand-alone hotel. I thought back to learning good architectural design should create projects that: 1. have a direct relationship with the natural features or landscape in which they exist 2.are more than ordinary -- they are innovative, coherent and integrated into their environment and community 3.not only fit that environment, but enhance it by being part of its beauty and values 4.take an approach that enhances the natural contours of their setting 5.are designed to be sustainable – not just by using solar panels, but by using sustainable materials in their construction 6.balance the applicant’s wishes with the concerns and needs of neighbors and the community. Studying this project reaffirmed to me that meeting ordinance requirements with the needed variances and the habitat requirements of the EIR plus that of state and federal agencies still would not make this project complement the natural setting of the property. No matter how hard I try, I cannot see this project meeting the qualities needed to achieve good architectural design that would enhance the visual character of our town and thus I cannot support its approval. Phyllis Metcalfe