HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRBM_04102008Design Review Board April 10, 2008
Page 1
MINUTES
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
April 10, 2008
MEMBERS PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT
Jody Cole Dave Hull
Tom Liden Julie Hull
Estok Menton Maya Simerson
Tom Hise Kerry Randall
Richard Moser, Chair Jimmy Brown
Nick Thayer
MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF PRESENT
Alan Nicholson Senior Planner Townsend
Cathy Elawadly, Recording
Secretary
The meeting of the Design Review Board was called to order by Chair Moser at 2:00 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 came forward.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: March 13, 2008 minutes
M/S Liden/Moser to approve March 13, 2008 minutes, as submitted. Motion carried.
ABSTAIN: Member Cole
5. MATTERS FROM THE BOARD
5A. Façade Improvement Grant Program: Review program emphasis and
eligibility requirements, for possible recommendation to Ukiah Redevelopment
Agency.
Senior Planner Townsend stated the DRB has expressed interest in clarifying project
eligibility and its responsibility in making project recommendations to the RDA under the
adopted Façade Improvement Grant program guidelines with the increase in grants to
$50,000 per store front with a lifetime maximum of $100,000. The FY 2007-08 Façade
Improvement grant program budget is $100,000. While the FIP budget amount is
$100,000 per year, there may be more reflected in the budget for a particular fiscal year
for projects that have been approved and funding encumbered, but the funding not yet
disbursed.
Senior Planner Townsend recommended discussion of the following eligibility
improvement guidelines and stated any recommendations for amendments will be
forwarded to the Finance Review Committee (FRC):
1. Eligibility of projects as a whole and specific to various components.
2. Project costs.
3. Maintenance versus rehabilitation, repair or refurbishing of elements.
4. Public/private partnership.
Design Review Board April 10, 2008
Page 2
5. Energy upgrades.
6. Proactive program.
To assist with the discussion, staff included excerpts relevant to the FIP guidelines
relevant to program emphasis, eligible improvements and expenses, and program
exclusions.
Staff/Committee discussed the above-referenced eligibility improvements in conjunction
with the existing guidelines for the FIP as follows:
It may be that the FIP should be divided into two different programs, one for
façade and one for landscaping and other elements. The annual $100,000
budget funding amount would then be divided into two pots of money, which can
be accomplished under one application. Potentially dividing the funding into two
different programs may actually simplify the process.
The intent of the program is to make a visual impact and make as g ood of use of
public funds as possible.
There was discussion about expanding boundaries for the program, since the
program has essentially expanded and consideration includes the Downtown
District and City gateways. The City gateways could be expanded to include not
only Perkins Street and Gobbi Street, but to strip mall areas along Talmage Road
and South on State Street by Miller Donuts and/or as far north as State
Street/Brush Street and State Street/Empire Drive where the commercial
establishments of the Tack Room and Diamond Jim’s are located.
The City gateways are the primary areas a person first sees when traveling from
the freeway and entering Ukiah where visual presentation is important
because the appearance makes a statement about the community.
The Committee acknowledged while the presentations of the gateways are
important, expansion of FIP boundaries may not be the best approach whereby
the primary concentration should likely be the Downtown area and/or areas
within the Commercial Development Design Guidelines. The objective is to
determine how to get the ‘most bang for the buck’ without expending all or most
of the funding on one project to attain the desired visual impact necessary, since
the annual funding amount does not go very far.
The Committee was also concerned with sporadic façade improvements that
beautify one site while another site nearby is in need of
renovation/repairs/maintenance, by expanding the boundaries too far.
Staff stated it may be that certain areas should be targeted whereby the property
owners are contacted about making repairs and maintenance to the site or
building.
The Committee also favored the concept of recruiting potential properties that
could benefit from the FIP by advertising that an active program exists. The
property owner can decide whether or not to apply. A Press Release can be
issued advising that funding is available.
It would be the Committee’s role to determine which components of a project can
funded and make a recommendation to the Finance Review Committee since
Design Review Board April 10, 2008
Page 3
there may be many components as in the case of the Hull project on E. Gobbi
Street. The role of the DRB is to decide whether or not a project would be a nice
design and an asset to the community. The Committee is aware such decisions
can be subjective.
Staff noted an applicant should be made aware early on that a project or
component of a project may not be funded. At the same time, a conceptual
design/plan of the project is important so that the Committee has an
understanding of what the applicant is trying to accomplish. It may not be
necessary for the applicant to spend a lot of money on elaborate project plans
during the initial evaluation stage when the Committee looks at the merits of the
project being proposed. The applicant should have the opportunity to meet with
the DRB and present some kind concept that does not necessarily have to be
real detailed. It would be at this point the Committee could decide which
components of the project could be funded and why it can be funded so that the
applicant has sufficient information to be able to bring back a more detailed
design concept/plan.
Funding availability will also depend on the time of year and the number of
projects being considered or that have been considered and the money
encumbered.
The Committee’s role is also to evaluate the degree of impact the proposed
improvement would make compared to the existing conditions.
The Ukiah Main Street Program can be of assistance with regard to
advertisement of the FIP.
The key to a quality project is the need to encourage improvements as part of the
process.
There are buildings in the Downtown Design District that could benefit from the
FIP.
The Commission addressed the matter of maintaining the existing boundaries and
questioned how the desire to expand the boundaries came about.
Senior Planner Townsend commented the subject of potentially expanding the FIP
boundaries came about from suggestions and discussions with applicants,
Councilmembers and other persons interested in the FIP.
Chair Moser commented it may make better sense for the DRB to recommend money
be set aside for property improvements in the City’s gateways, as opposed to dividing
the FIP into two separate pots of money. Since the amount of money that can be
apportioned is an issue, it may be that gateways should be a later consideration or that
gateways should not be a consideration at all. He cited the sign north of town advertising
Ukiah is located in the City’s gateway and needs renovation, noting the importance of
first impressions.
Vice Chair Menton stated it may be the gateway boundaries should include Gobbi and
Perkins Streets to the freeway and State Street to the north and south boundaries of the
City limits.
There was discussion about possibly excluding Talmage as a gateway.
Design Review Board April 10, 2008
Page 4
The Committee noted projects in the Downtown where a new color palette and awnings
have made a significant difference in the appearance of buildings and completed at a
reasonable cost whereas other properties in the gateways, for instance, might require
much more renovation at a higher cost than the FIP can fund in order to beautify a
building and/or property. It is therefore, important for the Board to consider projects
case-by-case relative to the amount of funding that is available and can be appropriated
and to formulate a chart or format for the purpose of prorating by percentage the
different elements of a project for eligibility and reimbursement at 50% as they relate to
landscaping, building exterior treatments, materials, and paint schemes, roof/gutter
systems, walkways, fencing, windows/doors, lighting, paving, and drainage. Having a
$100,000 annual cap actually restricts the types of improvements that can be done for a
project. It would be the responsibility of the DRB to determine which components of a
project can be funded.
With regard to eligibility of projects as a whole, the Committee agreed a pre-
application is necessary in order to determine which elements of a project would
be eligible for funding. This aspect should be addressed in the FIP guidelines.
The FIP guidelines should emphasize a project objective as being the best visual
impact for the public’s money wherein the improvements should be
façade-related rather than structural and/or retrofitting improvements.
The existing ‘Program Emphasis’ section of the guidelines includes: Buildings
with deteriorated facades, historic buildings and sites, landscaping and related
site elements in highly visible locations such as City gateways and Downtown
core, improvements that incentivize private investment that would not otherwise
be undertaken consistent with RDA and City objectives, and buildings/site
elements in significantly blighted areas serving as a catalyst for investment by
other property owners in the area.
The FIP guidelines should emphasize program beautification extends to all types
of building facades as opposed to just emphasizing façade improvements for
buildings having an obvious need due to significant deterioration.
There was discussion whether to eliminate ‘City gateways’ from the ‘Program
Emphasis’ section. Staff pointed out the General Plan defines gateways pertinent
to North and South State Street, Perkins and Gobbi Streets, and Talmage and
Low Gap Roads.
It was noted the Eligible Improvements and Expenses category allows for the
addition or renovation of exterior architectural elements, doors, windows,
awnings, landscaping, exterior lighting in conjunction with façade work, and
certain types of passive energy conservation improvements. There was a
discussion about the definition of passive energy.
Member Cole questioned the guidelines as they relate to funding for energy
upgrades and whether this should be included in another City energy-
conservation program rather than a part of the FIP.
Chair Moser stated funding should be made available for a window or door
replacement that is energy saving if it significantly impacts the appearance
and/or contributes to the longevity of a building because it relates to long-term
beautification.
The Committee addressed ‘Proactive Program’ and whether the City should
solicit/target certain buildings, properties or areas for participation in the FIP and
agreed the Ukiah Main Street Program could be of assistance in this regard.
Design Review Board April 10, 2008
Page 5
The Committee also addressed the matter of FIP funding relative to Maintenance
versus Rehabilitation, Repair or Refurbishing of Elements section. The City’s
commercial property maintenance ordinance makes it the responsibility of the
property owner to maintain the property. The Program Emphasis provides the
greatest guidance in this regard,’ noting there are situations where property
owners neglect for lack of money to make improvements that could result in
blight or a condition having a negative impact in the community who can apply for
funding. The degree and/or whether a project necessitates improvements and/or
is a quality project would be evaluated by Board, since the property owner is
essentially responsible for maintenance such as painting and/or other features
that affect the overall aesthetics and, the Board may decide to consider funding
only segments of a proposed project after reviewing the cost estimates for the
work being done.
It is important to emphasize that owners use quality paint brands for façade
improvements for longevity purposes, which only applies to commercial
properties.
Member Thayer stated the guidelines state funding cannot be used to help
someone out of a maintenance ordinance violation where the project was tagged
by City Code Enforcement for non-compliance with City Codes. The section
relevant to ‘Program Exclusions’ includes: “New construction projects, code
compliance or legalization of illegal or nonconforming construction or uses, and
projects involving buildings in a state of deterioration beyond repair.” It is for this
reason that property owners comply with the maintenance ordinance and
consistently make necessary repairs before the property deteriorates beyond
repair with the understanding public funding is available.
The Committee agreed projects should be held to the highest standard even
though the FIP is paying for ½ of the improvement work. Applicants should be
encouraged to meet with color consultants/architects because it is not the DRB’s
role to design projects. It is the DRB’s role to evaluate projects and make
recommendations.
Member Cole referred to ‘Eligible Improvements and Expenses,’ and inquired
why planning, building permit and professional fees such as engineering,
architectural, historical or design professional fees are eligible for funding under
the FIP grants because the end product may not be what the DRB’s is looking for
in a project.
Chair Moser stated the key to a quality project is to encourage rather than
discourage persons to consider the FIP wherein it may be crucial to the quality of
project for an applicant to consult with an engineer or architect to maintain a
quality project. This process also assists the DRB in its evaluation of a project in
order to understand what aspects of a project may be structural in nature and
which aspects pertain to actual façade-related improvements.
The Committee agreed essentially ‘everything’ is initially eligible under the FIP
wherein it is the DRB’s role to effectively evaluate by prioritizing projects to
determine how much can be funded for a project and to encourage applicants to
complete a pre-application so the Board can provide direction. During the initial
pre-application process, an applicant can present ‘conceptual’ drawings/plans,
allowing the DRB to make recommendations about the project.
Chair Moser emphasized the DRB’s objective is to look at projects for effective
ways to ‘beautify and enhance’ the community.
Design Review Board April 10, 2008
Page 6
Senior Planner Townsend stated even though Member Nicholson was unable to attend
today’s meeting, he would like to be able to provide input about the discussions. The
matter was therefore continued to May 8.
5B. Election of Chair and Vice-Chair
ON A MOTION by Member Menton, seconded by Member Liden to elect Richard
Moser as Chair. Motion carried.
ON A MOTION by Member Liden, seconded by Member Cole to elect Estok Menton
as Vice-Chair. Motion carried.
5C. Review adopted Commercial Development Design Guidelines and other
adopted documents; discuss topics for joint Design Review Board/Planning
Commission meeting.
No discussion.
6. MATTERS FROM STAFF
6A. 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.
Senior Planner Townsend referred to her Memorandum dated March 27, 2008
regarding continuation of review relevant to the Downtown Ukiah-Perkins Street Corridor
Form-Based Zoning Code Amendment, and stated the intent of the memorandum is to
provide staff’s responses to questions/concerns/issues in summary form that have been
raised about SMARTCODE. It may be the DRB desires to address SMARTCODE at
another meeting. Specifically, questions were raised about code sections/Tables: 9070
(Purpose and Intent), 9072 (Procedures and Process), 9073 (Zoning Map and
Regulating Plan), 9074 (Building and Site Plans relative to uses), (Table 6 Summary of
Standards/Table 9 relative to residential density, block perimeter, lot size, façade width,
lot coverage, building height) sections on Parking, Architectural Standards, Landscape
Standards, Signage, Lighting, Circulation, Other Standards and Requirements relative to
noise, toxic substances/odors, drainage and water quality, and fire protection, and Other
Issues relative to law enforcement, solid waste, Airport regulations, floodplain. She
included comments from Alan Nicholson as they relate to Architectural Standards
(materials and elements), openings, roofs and rooflines, screening and fences, and
corner treatments.
Senior Planner Townsend commented as follows:
Staff has been focusing on aligning the new roads and alleys with property lines
relative to the Regulating Plan/SMARTCODE documents through the use of
aerial photographs and Assessors parcel numbers in conjunction with the
location of buildings for clarity/continuity purposes because some of the
proposed new roads/alleys would go through buildings. The other concept
about alleys is that property owners will have to addresses access issues
particularly if parking is located to the rear of buildings.
Staff has been looking at the size and shapes of lots whether or not they would
be feasible for development.
Member Hise stated in his conversations with property owners in the Downtown, the
next step would be to hire a consultant to address the questions raised and other issues
Design Review Board April 10, 2008
Page 7
about SMARTCODE so that the document can move forward from a concept into an
adopted and working document.
The Committee will discuss this agenda item in greater detail at a later date.
Member Liden inquired about the process for addressing the issues/questions raised
since he has concerns that adoption and application of SMARTCODE could essentially
make Ukiah look like every other community that has adopted the Code.
Senior Planner Townsend addressed an e-mail from Member Nicholson regarding site
view at 307 N. State Street.
7 FAÇADE IMPROVEMENT GRANT PROGRAM
7A. Façade Improvement Grant Program 07-06, City of Ukiah, 200 S. School
Street. Replace awning fabric and repaint Ukiah Valley Conference Center.
(Continuation of Review) Recommendation to Finance Review Committee
Senior Planner Townsend commented the Ukiah Valley Conference Center received
initial feedback from the DRB on March 13, 2008 and asked the applicant to explore
additional colors that would coordinate with the proposed new awning while maintaining
the Art Deco Style of the building.
The applicant submitted a new proposed awning fabric and color palette, as shown on
the color boards presented to the Committee. The work proposed involves:
1. Replacing the existing five burgundy awnings along school street with Charcoal
Tweed canvas (Sunbrella #4607) using the existing frames. The cost estimate is
$15,000.
2. Replacing the existing burgundy awning and frame over the main entrance to the
Conference Center at the Oak Street entrance with an extended canopy,
maintaining the same rounded effect to match the other awnings. The cost
estimate is $4,000.
3. Preparing exterior building surface for painting. The building is currently painted
in pink tones. The applicant is proposing a four tone pallet to include Silver
Trophy, Wood Anemone, Seal Gray and Deep Garret. The cost estimate is
$25,000.
According to the Commercial Downtown Development Design Guidelines, building
facades within the Downtown area should have visual variety and distinctiveness and
exterior paint colors should relate to natural building materials and be compatible to
surrounding properties.
In terms of consistency with the FIP grant guidelines:
Type and location of work: Exterior awnings, paint and preparation are eligible
expenses. Facades are emphasized. Walls not facing public streets are eligible
on a case by case basis when highly visible. Given the mass of the building and
its location downtown, staff recommends all work be considered for eligibility.
Cost: The total cost is $44,000 of which 50% of eligible expenses could be
considered for reimbursement. The FIP allows a lifetime maximum
reimbursement of $50,000 per storefront. The building has not previously
received a FIP grant.
Design Review Board April 10, 2008
Page 8
Staff/applicant/Committee commented as follows:
Staff advised Member Nicholson was not supportive of the color scheme.
Maya Simerson referred to the proposed color scheme and demonstrated how
the different color palettes would be effectively applied where the intent is to
provide for a nice contrast and aesthetically pleasing building that is compatible
with other buildings in the neighborhood and complementary to the community.
The exterior color scheme will blend in nicely with the existing interior colors.
Kerry Randall stated selection of an exterior color palette to be harmonious with
the existing color scheme for the interior of the building was the most cost
effective approach.
The DRB supports extending the awning behind the existing awning at the back
entrance on Oak Street.
The DRB emphasized selecting quality paint to maintain longevity.
It was noted the preparation work for painting of the exterior should be included
in the cost estimate as being part of the paint process rather than as a separate
cost.
It was noted the existing frames for awnings will be kept except for an additional
frame on the Oak Street door will be needed.
There was a discussion about the proposed color palettes in keeping with the ‘Art
Deco’ architectural style as opposed to the use of darker earth tones that anchor
the building and help reduce the mass.
The applicant noted the primary color palette effectively softens the appearance
of the building and the other color palettes provide the balance necessary for a
nice presentation. The color of the awnings was selected to provide for that extra
harmonious touch.
The applicant advised the RFP's for bids are ready to go out.
It was noted since the applicant is the City of Ukiah, additional money should be
added to the $100,000 pot so that the proposed project does not take away from
other projects.
Chair Moser stated the DRB can make a recommendation to the FRB
supporting approval of the project, but final cost figures must be submitted before
the project can actually be approved. The DRB requested the applicant come
back to either to Board or to staff with the final cost figures.
Senior Planner Townsend stated with regard to the cost estimates in the sum of
$44,000, the alternative would be for the Board to affirm that the final costs
should not exceed the estimated sum. It could be the final cost for the project is
less.
Member Liden supports the proposed color scheme as being ‘very warm’ and
provides for a ‘clean’ appearance and highly complementary to the Downtown.
Senior Planner Townsend commented the Ukiah Conference Center is
essentially the ‘hub of commerce’ in the Downtown because people from all over
the State use the facility. She supported forming a sub-committee to look at
different color palettes.
Kerry Randall addressed other buildings that feature light colors with contrasting
grays to enhance/enrich the appearance and in keeping with the Art Deco form of
architecture.
The DRB likes the proposed colors scheme and does not support the application
of earth tone colors for the building.
Design Review Board April 10, 2008
Page 9
M/S Hise/Cole to recommend the Finance Review Committee approves Façade
Improvement Grant Program 07-06 contingent on compliance with the project Conditions
of Approval. Motion carried.
7B. Façade 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.
Senior Planner Townsend commented as follows:
The applicant has applied for a FIP grant to update his building on East Gobbi
Street.
The project involves the following improvements:
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 the north, remove a
portion of the 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 small entry trees, add small fence
along the front landscape area, and add lighting.
Building exterior – Paint the existing building and covered walkway along
with the existing wood post and beams, and replace the existing window
and doors.
Roof – Replace existing roof with clay tiles.
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 project received a pre-application review by the DRB and more recently a
review wherein the Board made many suggestions relevant to the conceptual site
plan, requesting the applicant bring back a more defined plan specific to
landscaping design, color and material choices.
As addressed in the staff report, the applicant revised his project and proposes
for the roof a ‘one-piece S Clay Tile – color combination of El Camino Blend,
Mallorca, and Fire Flash. For the exterior paint color, a three tone color palette is
proposed. Ferncliffe for the main color, Oxford brown for the trim around the
windows and doors and Saltillo for the roof trim. For the landscaping, the
applicant has submitted a detailed landscape plan that includes 15 gallon Maples
“Autumn Glory’ trees proposed for the interior of the parking lot also serving as a
street tree, and six 15 gallon Sycamore trees are proposed along the northern
property line. A portion of the front walkway will be removed and replaced with
permeable pavers along with a new planter. With regard to the fence, a small
wrought iron fence is proposed in the front landscape area along E. Gobbi Street.
Table 1 on page 2 of the staff report provides a revised list of the cost estimates
relative to painting the building’s exterior, a roof and gutter system, fencing,
windows/doors, landscaping/irrigation/lighting, front pavers and grading/drainage
and paving for a total of $121,213.
Since the building has not previously received a FIP grant, the grant allows 50%
of eligible expenses up to $50,000 to be considered for reimbursement with a
Design Review Board April 10, 2008
Page 10
lifetime maximum reimbursement of $100,000 per storefront. The maximum
reimbursement that could be considered at this time is $50,000. Staff determined
the proposed exterior painting, roof replacement and landscaping along with the
windows and doors replacement are eligible items for funding because they are
part of the façade that is highly visible from E. Gobbi Street, which is a City
gateway.
Staff recommends the Board discuss whether the wrought iron fence should be
eligible for reimbursement under the grant program.
Staff further recommends the Board review whether or not parking lot repaving
would be an eligible item. Staff supports parking lot remediation as required to
enlarge and install new planters and improve the aesthetics of the site and
recommends 50% of the costs for paving one-half of the site be eligible.
Table 2 on pages 2 and 3 of the staff report, shows the recommended eligible
expenses reimbursable at 50% for a total of $27,569 not to exceed $30,000.
Staff calculated the eligible expenses relative to drainage and irrigation by
percentage based on the site because more information about the project was
needed in order to make a more informed recommendation.
While the applicant initially proposed installing trash/recycling containers, staff is
of the opinion this project component is necessary and therefore, suggests that
$30,000 be encumbered for the project to help fund 50% of the trash/recycle
enclosure.
Dave Hull commented as follows:
He met with a color consultant and proposes an alternative color scheme that
provides for a Reckwick Olive for the body, Fiery Brown and Rookwood Terra
Cotta for the window trim/eves and facia/posts/front door.
He proposed a change in the windows materials as featured in an Anderson
windows and patio doors catalogue to be of a sandtone color. He submitted a
cost estimate in the sum of $2,712.56 from Home Depot’s bid room, which is
significantly less than originally proposed.
A French door is proposed where there is no window for southeast corner of the
building on the Gobbi Street face.
He commented briefly on the proposed landscaping features, particularly the
proposed tree species for the site and parking lot.
The roof treatment remains the same as initially proposed.
The applicant’s Farmers Insurance Group business and the District Office of
Farmers Insurance Group will be the only occupants.
He intends to replace the front door and he will submit a cost estimate for the
new door.
Staff/applicant/DRB discussed the project as follows:
Member Liden commented the proposed new color scheme is lighter and less
contrasting than the initial proposal.
The Committee supports the proposed new color scheme for the building
exterior.
Member Thayer addressed the shade producing trees proposed for the parking
lot, including the parking area to the north.
Dave Hull stated portions of the landscaping plan that includes the proposed
fencing are the result of problems with people trespassing on his property.
Design Review Board April 10, 2008
Page 11
The DRB addressed the matter of the windows type and grade and
corresponding color selection and agreed the color of the windows would blend
nicely with the new color palette.
Dave Hull stated the cost of windows vary depending upon type and grade.
Dave Hull needs to relocate his business as soon as possible to the E. Gobbi
Street site and advised he must begin work on the building/site improvements.
Member Thayer asked about how the fencing would work.
Dave Hull is reluctant to install extensive landscaping without a fence around the
perimeter because it would get ruined by the homeless and/or other undesirables
in the area that trespass on his property. The wrought iron fencing will be black.
Member Thayer commented on the design of the fence and suggested the top
treatment on the fence be a ball rather than of arrow design.
There was discussion about the exiting Redwood trees and other vegetative
species that would be a good fit and be able to compete with the size of the
Redwood trees.
Member Thayer stated the existing Junipers Trees will be left on the site. The
front of the site will be of evergreen tree species and the Maples (Autumn Glory)
and existing Cedars for the interior of the site will be representative of the Fall
colors. Vines will clad to the chain link fence in the rear of the property. The
irrigation system/pavers will function to ensure vegetative survival. The site will
also feature Manzanita, sycamore trees, Feather Grass, and other vegetative
species provided for on Attachment 3 of the staff report.
Staff noted fencing was not recommended for eligibility.
Dave Hull expressed concerned about the landscape budget, which was
originally $15,000 and is now $24,065, particularly with the plan changes relative
to the vegetation and paving of the parking lot on the northern boundary.
Originally, staff recommended 50% of the asphalt be eligible for reimbursement
wherein the FIP participation has been reduced to from $50,000 to $30,000. It
was his understanding there would be 100% FIP participation for the roof,
painting of the building’s exterior, and landscaping with the exception of some
elements relative to lighting. Now that the participation for the parking lot will be
50% as opposed to 100%, it would be costly for him to ‘saw-cut’ the asphalt to
prepare for the landscaping around the building. He questions the consistency of
participation if the FIP will include exterior building painting, roof, and
landscaping with the exception of the asphalt for rear parking lot. He could
exclude improvements to the northern most parking lot and/or pay out-of-pocket
to have the existing pavement ‘saw-cut’ to accommodate the landscaping and
pave the front parking area, since this portion would be included in the
participation. Saw-cutting takes time and is costly in terms of labor.
Staff commented on the original participation of $50,000 wherein the cost was
projected at $165,000, and noted even with elimination of the grading, paving,
and drainage reducing the projected cost to $115,000, the project would still be
over what can be expended. She referred to the recommended eligible expenses
and stated this is the reason the project cost for drainage and irrigation in the
sum of $59,000 was apportioned by percentage for a total of $14,750. There was
not sufficient detail to the plan for staff to factor in the cost of ‘saw-cutting’
pavement.
Staff estimated the eligibility costs at $55,139 x 50% reimbursement for a total of
$27,569.
Design Review Board April 10, 2008
Page 12
There was discussion about the most cost effective way to prepare for the
landscaping with the reduction in participation for the paving.
Chair Moser stated not every item of the project would be eligible for
reimbursement with regard to all aspects of landscaping and paving so it may not
be possible for Mr. Hull to make all improvement as originally anticipated.
Therefore, the DRB must decide whether to accept the project as being a ‘good’
design’ according to eligibility under the FIP guidelines if certain aspects of the
original plans such as landscaping and paving of the northern portion of site were
eliminated relative to the staff’s recommendation in Table 2 of the staff report.
Dave Hull commented his project costs would be reduced if certain portions of
the landscaping and paving were eliminated since the participation has changed.
He inquired whether the Board will consider participating in the cost of paving the
parking lot to the north since the participation in paving of the site has been
reduced. He recommended approving the building and roofing portion of the
project, since the DRB supports the design aspects for this portion of project and
leave out the paving and landscaping portion of the proposal at this time.
Member Thayer recommended dividing the project into phases wherein Phase I
would include the building and roof and Phase II would include landscaping and
paving.
The Committee supports approval of the building’s exterior and roof
improvements and leaving the landscaping/paving and other issues to be
continued.
M/S Thayer/Liden to recommend the Finance Review Committee approve for Grant
Program 07-05 contingent on compliance with the project Conditions of Approval with
regard to the building’s exterior and roof only and leave the landscaping/paving and
other issues to be continued for discussion at a later date. Motion carried.
8. SET NEXT MEETING/ADJOURNMENT:
The DRB set a tentative date of April 24, 2008 to continue with Board business. If this
date is not feasible, the next regular meeting will be May 8, 2008.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:26 p.m.
Richard Moser, Chair
Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary