HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRBM_03132008 MINUTES DESIGN REVIEW BOARD March 13, 2008 MEMBERS PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT Tom Liden Dave Hull Estok Menton Julie Hull Tom Hise Judy Waterman Richard Moser, Chair Kerry Waterman Alan Nicholson Maya Simerson Lisa Mammina Tom Fracchia MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF PRESENT Jody Cole Senior Planner Townsend Nick Thayer Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary The meeting of the Design Review Board was called to order by Chair Moser at 3:00 p.m., at Ukiah Civic Center, Conference Room No. 5, 411 West Clay Street, Ukiah, California. 2. ROLL CALL Roll was taken with the results listed above. 3. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Lisa Mammina commented her building located at 201 S. State Street was named `renovation of the year' project by the Ukiah Chamber of Commerce. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 24 & January 31, 2008 and February 14, 2008 M/S Hise/Menton to approve the January 24, 2008 minutes, as submitted. Motion carried. M/S Liden/Hise to approve the January 31, 2008 minutes, as submitted. Motion carried. M/S Menton/Hise to approve the February 14, 2008 minutes, as submitted. Motion carried. 5. FACADE IMPROVEMENT GRANT PROGRAM 5A. Fa�ade Improvement Grant Program 07-05, Dave Hull, 376 E. Gobbi Street. Paint and reroof building, landscaping and parking lot improvement: Recommendation to Finance Review Committee. The project plans involve: • Parking lot- Re-grade and repave the parking lot. • Landscaping — Replace all existing trees with shade trees, add landscape strip with shrubs and trees along the northern property line to provide a break between the site and the mobilehome park to north, remove portion of front walkway and replace with permeable pavers along with a new planter, remove trees on the east side of the building and replace with low growing shrubs and Design Review Board March 13, 2008 Page 1 small entry trees, add small fence along the front landscape area, add lighting. (Attachment 2) • Building Exterior — Stucco and paint the existing building and covered walkway, paint the existing wood post and beams, and replace the existing window and doors. (Attachments 5 and 8) • Roof- Replace existing roof with clay titles. (Attachment 6) • Fence — New fence along the east property line to be installed between the parking lot and the existing retail store. A chain link fence is proposed for the portion of the fence hidden behind the store and a wrought iron fence is proposed for the portion that will be seen from the street. A wrought iron fence is also proposed along the front landscape area along the E. Gobbi Street sidewalk. • The proposed project is consistent with the Commercial Downtown Development Design Guidelines, the Ukiah General Plan and C-1 Zoning designation. • The estimated costs for the various projects are included on page 3 of the staff report for an approximate total of $165,000, of which the applicant has applicant has applied for a Fa�ade Improvement Grant that allows 50% of eligible expenses to be considered for reimbursement with a lifetime maximum reimbursement of $50,000 per storefront. The cost estimates as proposed exceed the $50,000 cap. The applicant and Board focused their discussions on the conceptual site plan, referenced in Attachment 6 as it relates to: Parking/Landscaping • The applicant proposes to retain the existing Redwood Trees fronting E. Gobbi Street for 10 or more years. • Landscaping consultant Tom Fracchia demonstrated areas on the site plan proposed for landscaping and made some recommendations concerning tree and vegetative species. He desires to work with Landscape Architect Nick Thayer concerning landscaping features/species for the planter areas and parking lot that would work best for the project. • Dave Hull stated on the east elevation there is an existing irrigation system in place that has essentially been abandoned and could be used for landscaping purposes in the existing two-foot planter strip that extends along the entire east side of his property between his building and the convenience store. He proposes Boston ivy or Ficus Renens be planted in this area, which would require the convenience store to relocate their dumpsters and other debris, allowing for a much softer view. His intent is to add a strip of planter area along the fence line behind the store and provide landscaping that will `train up' the fence that was recently installed. This matter has been addressed in an e-mail to staff dated, March 7, 2008. • There are problems with homeless persons and other undesirables trespassing on the applicant's property, which prompted landscaping proposals and fencing as a way to help curb some of the problems. It may be that having his insurance business in the building will also help discourage trespassing and other nuisance problems. • There are plans to install landscaping lighting features that would not impact the mobilehome park to the north. Also, the lighting on the site should help with the unwanted loitering problems. Design Review Board March 13, 2008 Page 2 • The project plans include re-doing the entire parking lot and putting in a 40-inch planter strip and ground cover along the retaining wall of the mobilehome park and the northern boundary line of his property where one tree is proposed for every four parking stalls for the parking lot. Landscaping will be included in the area of the chain link fence. • The DRB supported the landscaping plans for the north and east elevations as addressed above. • There was discussion about landscaping plans for the entrance of the building and the area that fronts E. Gobbi Street that would allow for a warmer presentation by possibly adding another planter area which may include a tree and modifying the existing sidewalk to the building. The applicant does propose to tear out a section of the existing sidewalk, install a new irrigation system on the other side of the entrance way and re-plant the area to include an shade tree to replace the tree that was initially planted in this area. • The applicanYs plans include the installation of `pavers' extending from the sidewalk area to the steps leading to the building where another planter area will be created. • The DRB supports modifying the entrance of the building and providing landscaping and landscaping features allowing for a nice visual effect. • The applicant proposes to remove the existing parking lot trees because the tree roots have raised the asphalt causing damage and replace with a tree species that provides a better shade canopy. • Staff does recommend retaining a street tree in the center planter area in the front portion of the property and that the parking lot trees provide shade be planted in a manner so their root system does not impact the surFacing of the parking lot. • There was discussion about the materials that can be used for the parking lot to include asphalt and possible use of permeable materials for the center of the parking lot so that excess runoff can go into the landscaping. • The DRB supports the use of retention ponds and/or the use of permeable materials where feasible to assist with on-site drainage retention. • There was discussion concerning proposed planter areas that would enhance the appearance of the site, which will involve improvements to the sidewalk on the site and installation of a new irrigation system. • There was discussion about the problems with the Redwood Trees uprooting the sidewalk where the intent is to install vegetation having a deep root system and not select vegetative species having a shallower root system. It may be that if other landscaping species are planted in the area of the Redwood Trees incorporating a drip system, the Redwood Trees would not get as much water, causing less damage to the sidewalk and paved areas. • The DRB requests Nick Thayer and Tom Fracchia consult on tree species for the parking lot that will provide adequate shade coverage without damage to the paved areas. Tom Fracchia supports the implementation of `paver systems' for parking lots so trees/vegetative species have the necessary space to breathe and flourish without being paved over. Also, the use of quality soil helps trees/vegetation to thrive. • There was discussion about placement of trees on the site, which includes the parking lot. • There was discussion about ingress and egress from E. Gobbi Street and overall circulation on the site taking into consideration the realty business located to the Design Review Board March 13, 2008 Page 3 west of the applicant's building in the same area. The parking areas for the two businesses, while separate, are well used and often filled to capacity. The applicant is concerned about having a sufficient number of parking stalls to accommodate his insurance business. Providing for an effective parking layout plan is very important to the applicant. The owner of the realty business to the west has no interest in upgrading/improving his section of the parking area, which includes all parking stalls in the center of the parking lot. • There was further discussion about the parking accommodations, particularly where the 40-inch planter strip is proposed at the northern portion of the site in conjunction with restriping techniques and angling differentials to allow for optimum use of space for parking stalls, some of which can be compact and still comply with City standards relative to one parking lot tree for every four stalls. • Staff noted compact parking spaces are effective in planter strips in the center of parking lots. There was discussion about the matter of installing planter strips in the middle of the parking lot and techniques for conserving of parking stalls. • There was also a brief discussion about whether it would be beneficial to formulate a committee that would include Mendocino County ReLeaf to assist with the selection of appropriate trees for the site. The DRB recommended the applicant meet with Nick Thayer and Tom Fracchia to formulate a Landscape Plan that includes parking accommodations for further review by the Board. The DRB supports the above-referenced landscaping proposals. The DRB did not favor engaging too many groups/agencies in the tree species selection process recognizing too many people having different opinions could actually impede the process. Lisa Mammina addressed the discussion concerning the north elevation, and inquired how the north side of building applies to the Fa�ade Improvement Program (FIP) principles, as it has been her experience the building's fa�ade in terms of qualifications should be the most prominent side of the building. In her opinion, the south fa�ade is the prominent side for consideration under FIP policy. However, the west side facade could be given some consideration. David Hull has proposed improvements to the east elevation adjacent to the food and liquor store because it is visual to the public looking northerly from E. Gobbi Street. Chair Moser acknowledged Ms. Mammina's point and understands that a determination will have to be made concerning which aspects of the improvements qualify under the FIP. Member Hise agreed that the securing of funds is contingent upon which facades qualify, which in this case are likely the south and west elevations. Chair Moser stated the FIP rules have changed so a view of the policy as they would apply to Mr. Hull's project would be necessary. At this juncture, the priority would be to provide for comprehensive landscaping and site improvement plans where consideration can be given about which facades would benefit most from the fa�ade grant program, which would depend upon the magnitude of the improvements. Design Review Board March 13, 2008 Page 4 David Hull is pleased there is a FIP available to assist with his proposed improvements and is not overly concerned which facades would or would not qualify. He is more interested in starting the project and with making improvements and upgrading the appearance of the property. Buildinq Exterior • The applicant intends to repaint the building exterior using a three-tone color scheme as opposed to the original plan of stucco and use of paint on various other portions of the building. It would be more cost effective to repaint the building using a color scheme that would allow for a nice presentation. He may at a later date consider the element of stucco on his building. • Member Nicholson stated `great things' can be done with color. • Dave Hull desires to make as many improvements possible within his budget. Member Menton recommended the DRB provide the direction the applicant needs to move forward with the project. Roof • The intent is to proceed with clay titles, as shown on Attachment 9. The DRB agreed with the applicant regarding the proposed roof improvements. Senior Planner Townsend commented one aspect of the facade program does emphasize is landscaping-related site elements in highly visible locations such as City gateways in the Downtown core, which is not just limited to the front of a building. It is the DRB's role to determine how to best use the public funds and make a recommendation to the Finance Review Board. Member Hise stated while the discussions have been informative, it would be more beneficial in terms of the decision-making process to review final design plans as they relate to parking, landscaping, exterior building/roofing/fencing materials, and color schemes. 5B. Fa�ade Improvement Grant Program 07-06, City of Ukiah, 200 S. School Street. Replace awning fabric and repaint Ukiah Valley Conference Center: Recommendation to Finance Review Committee. The project involves the replacement of the fabric on the existing six awnings and the preparation and repainting of the building's exterior. Kerry Randal commented the theme of the building is `art deco' where the intent is to maintain this design. Maya Simerson commented the exiting awnings and paint on the building are definitely looking their age. The DRB and applicants referred to attachments 3-1, 3-2, 3-3, 3-4 displaying color renderings of the existing building/awnings from various elevations and discussed the project with the applicants. Design Review Board March 13, 2008 Page 5 Member Liden suggested not going with a solid color for the awnings in order to show less wear over time. The DRB suggested hiring a consultant to review paint palates to effectively coordinate with the color scheme of the awnings and bring back to the Committee for a consideration and recommendation to the Finance Review Committee. 6. NEW AND MODIFIED CONSTRUCTION 6A. Site Development Permit 08-96, 125 W. Mill Street. Raise roof of building (Lillian's Day Spa): Recommendation to Zoning Administrator The project involves a minor alteration to the front roof exterior and replacement of an existing rail on the handicapped ramp. The proposed project will raise a small section of roof just behind the existing cupola to allow for some interior alterations. The roof section will remain five feet below the building ridge and 10 feet below the cupola peak. The application is referred to the DRB because it is located within the Downtown Design District and involves a historic building that is highly visible. Judy Waterman stated the reason for the proposed project is because the slope of the roof does not allow sufficient room for an adult person to stand up. The Applicant and DRB referred to Attachment 1-1 and discussed the project. The DRB reviewed the proposed design and made the following recommendations: • The color of the trim on the building and turret should match. • Modification of the design should be such that the roof pitch matches the pitch of the turret. Judy Waterman agreed with the DRB's recommendations and noted a new roof is planned for the building. The DRB desires to review the project as modified. M/S Nicholson/Hise to approve the proposed plan as modified, which is to match the roof pitch for the addition to match the turret and for the color of trim and siding to match the existing siding for the turret, and for the DRB to review the revised project plans prior to going to the Zoning Administrator hearing. Motion carried. 7. MATTERS FROM THE STAFF 7A. Continuation of Review: Downtown Ukiah-Perkins Street Corridor Form- Based Zoning Code Amendment, City of Ukiah Planning and Community Development Department: Review and comment on proposal. Continued to next meeting. 7B. Review adopted Commercial Development Design Guidelines and other adopted documents; discuss topics for joint Design Review Board/Planning Commission meeting. Continued to next meeting. 8. MATTERS FROM THE BOARD 8A. Election of Chair and Vice-Chair Design Review Board March 13, 2008 Page 6 Continued to next meeting. 6. SET NEXT MEETING/ADJOURNMENT: The next meeting for the DRB will be March 27, 2008 at 3:00 p.m. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:10 p.m. Richard Moser, Chair Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary Design Review Board March 13, 2008 Page 7