Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRBM_02142008 MINUTES DESIGN REVIEW BOARD February 14, 2008 MEMBERS PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT Jody Cole None Tom Liden Estok Menton Tom Hise Richard Moser, Chair Alan Nicholson Nick Thayer MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF PRESENT None Senior Planner Townsend Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary The meeting of the Design Review Board was called to order by Chair Moser at 2:25 p.m., at Ukiah Civic Center, Conference Room No. 3, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California. 2. ROLL CALL Roll was taken with the results listed above. 3. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS No one from the audience came forward. 4. MATTERS FROM STAFF Member Thayer agreed to sit on the Sign Committee and the Street Tree Planting Plan committee for the SmartCode. 4A. CONTINUATION - Downtown Ukiah-Perkins Street Corridor Form-Based Zoning Code Amendment, City of Ukiah Planning and Community Development Department: Review and comment on proposal. Senior Planner Townsend stated staff's intent is to continue dialoguing with the public, Planning Commission, City Council, Design Review Board, other relevant boards/committees and interested persons about issues, concerns, questions, comments pertinent to the `SmartCode.' Chair Moser asked the Design Review Board members to address the main areas of interest and general concerns that they would like the DRB to focus on today, getting into more detail at the next meeting. Members can also provide detail to Planning staff in addition to formal comments provided by the DRB. The DRB commented/expressed concern/questioned regarding the `SmartCode' document as follows: ■ Streetscapes and street trees should be of a species that works/fits well in Ukiah rather than a list of probable street trees that may or may not work for Ukiah. ■ Ukiah will look like every other place that adopts the model code. Design Review Board February 14, 2008 Page 1 ■ The concept of `SmartCode' should encourage greater creativity/flexibility without being held to the specific development standards articulated for each of the three transect zones provided for in Table 6 (Summary of Standards). It is important to balance definitive standards while allowing provisions for flexibility. The element of flexibility likely pertains to projects `outside of the box' that do not necessarily conform with the code standards and cannot be more or less `streamlined' through the permit process because: 1. The project does not comply with all requirements of the District SmartCode and Regulating Plan. 2. There can be no Warrants or Exceptions requested/required. 3. The project does not significantly alter architectural character or appearance of historic structure or sites. 4. The project is consistent with Airport regulations. The DRB questioned whether there should be specific criteria that more clearly defines when a project can move forward without discretionary review. Staff noted the intent of the code and corresponding Regulating Plan in conjunction with the application process was to promote/encourage possibly a more historical look for certain areas in the Downtown core and for areas outside, other types of architecture/design elements would be appropriate provided the design and materials for the project are in keeping with the development model objectives and standards for the GU, UC, and DC zoning designations. Architectural prototype alternatives/expansion of detail should be considered within the context of the SmartCode development guidelines. The intent of the process is to reduce the amount of discretionary review so as to allow for some flexibility and still be `black and white' enough such that the code standards are understood. If a property owner desires to go `outside of the box' for a project in terms of compliance with the code standards, he/she would be subject to more intensive discretionary review. The proposed `transect zones' are not yet "written in stone." There was discussion concerning the flowchart relative to the application process. By comparison, under the current code, projects are allowed up to 150 square feet before requiring discretionary review with a public hearing while under the proposed code projects are allowed up to 5,000 square feet before requiring discretionary review with a public hearing. There was discussion about building `footprint' versus building square footage in conjunction with discretionary review and the required building heights for the three zones, noting a two story minimum for principle buildings in the GU and UC zones and a three-story minimum for the DC zone. ■ The purpose and intent section of the code is open-minded and progressive and fairly inclusive, but the specifics of the code are very exclusive and conflicting and inconsistent with the Regulating Plan. There must be uniformity/consistency between the code and Regulating Plan in order for developments/improvements/redevelopment projects to be workable in accordance with the community's vision of what makes `good' sense and what they want to see in the project areas. ■ The proposed process allows for large and potentially significant buildings without discretionary review so the code needs to provide certainty about Design Review Board February 14, 2008 Page 2 architectural style. While the code does not rule out other styles, they would require discretionary review. ■ Should the code be left to interpretation requiring that all projects be reviewed, noting the SmartCode District has a proposed application process. The interpretation would then be only as good as the decision makers or advisory boards reviewing projects. ■ The code prescribes an architecture that favors an east coast/southern look whereby the intent is for the code to reflect the architectural style people at the charrette favored, which is a quality, historic look. ■ A problem is that historic architecture tends to be unaffordable now so people will substitute materials that do not stand the test of time. ■ While the code is specific as to what materials can be used and there are hardly any materials that cannot be used, it does not support some of the predominant treatments/design elements/architectural features used for the Sun House and Museum whereby the application of this craftsman style architecture would not be allowed. ■ Reference to the purpose and intent section of the `SmartCode' document expresses/emphasizes well a desired architectural character, but the architectural standards are too specific. ■ The DRB favors allowing for more than one look/design characteristic, provided it is appropriate or, as an alternative, specify several styles complemented by graphics. ■ For streets and alleys, the Regulating Plan should match the restrictiveness of the document and corresponding property lines clearly defined to avoid potential conflicts with property owners and application of the code. Furthermore, the location of alleys and streets relative to parcel lines needs to be established before the Regulatory Map is adopted. Who is going to pay for new alleys and streets and are they required or recommended and what would happen if an alley goes through a building or makes property undevelopable. ■ The language in SmartCode should provide flexibility for existing lots and buildings, and additions. How will additions/remodels to buildings be treated and whether additions must be two or three stories to comply with the code standards opposed to a one-story addition. The point at which conformance with the code is required needs to be set high enough so that small remodels and the like do not trigger a lot of expensive requirements and, consider using square footage rather than assessed value as a cost triggering mechanism. ■ Few changes can be made to parcels that are small where thought should likely be given to combining them for optimum use of land. ■ With regard to repairs/improvements to infrastructure, whether property owners will be required to pay for them and how will the City finance public improvements such as to the City's drainage system. ■ DRB addressed the matter of constraints and emphasized the need for airport and floodplain overlays shown on base maps. ■ The matter of lighting as addressed in Table 3 of the SmartCode is not compliant with `Dark Sky' regulations. The DRB recommended eliminating the diagram on page on page 8 of the code. ■ There was discussion about the element of nonconforming uses whereby property lines should be considered a starting point for whatever type of changes are proposed. It should be that existing structures and/or public right-of-ways will be considered first. Design Review Board February 14, 2008 Page 3 ■ How does a property owner address his/her property designated for a civic space or civic building under the Code provisions when the property owner may want to development the property for a different use and/or if the property is located in the Brush Street Triangle having essentially two governmental jurisdictions. ■ How will increased lot coverage and densities/compaction affect parking and traffic circulation particularly for larger vehicles when the block perimeters are relatively small and more streets are proposed. Also, the maximum footage for block perimeters is less than the recommended footage for parking structures, provided for on page 32 of the code standards and how this will be addressed in terms of development costs when it would be more cost effective to have larger block perimeters to accompany the building height minimum of two stories for each of the zones and provide for adequate parking. ■ DRB addressed the issue of fa�ade width and referred to Tables 9.1 and 9.2 under Lot standards/fa�ade widths and inquired as to the intent of this provision and whether this is intended to be `lot width.' Would one building with three storefronts be considered one fa�ade? What about contiguous zero-lot line buildings? The definition of fa�ade refers to building. How does this work on a lot with a wide frontage, such as on Perkins Street, if the maximum fa�ade width is 96 feet on a 200 foot frontage. 4B. Review adopted Commercial Development Design Guidelines and other adopted documents; discuss topics for joint Design Review Board/Planning Commission meeting. This matter was deferred for later discussion. 5. MATTERS FROM THE BOARD 5B. Election of Chair and Vice-Chair This matter was deferred to the next regular meeting in March 2008. The DRB requested that the members be furnished with a list of all the comments/concerns/questions made by them about the `SmartCode.' 6. SET NEXT MEETING/ADJOURNMENT: The next regular meeting will be March 13, 2008 at 3:00 p.m. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 3:16 p.m. Richard Moser, Chair Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary Design Review Board February 14, 2008 Page 4