Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRBM_09112008 MINUTES DESIGN REVIEW BOARD September 11, 2008 MEMBERS PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT Jody Cole Katherine Elliot Tom Hise Richard Palafox Tom Liden Nick Thayer Alan Nicholson Estok Menton, Vice Chair MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF PRESENT Richard Moser, Chair Jennifer Faso, Associate Planner Cathleen Moller, Economic Development Coordinator Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary The meeting of the Design Review Board was called to order by Acting Chair Liden at 2:12 p.m., at Ukiah Civic Center, Conference Room No. 5, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California. 2. ROLL CALL Roll was taken with the results listed above. 3. RIGHT TO APPEAL Acting Chair Liden read the appeal process. For matters heard at this meeting, the final date for appeal is September 22, 2008. 4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS No one came forward. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: July 31, 2008 minutes Vice Chair Menton noted he was absent at the July 31, 2008 meeting. M/S Cole/Liden to approve the July 31, 2008 minutes, as amended. Motion carried. 6. NEW AND MODIFIED CONSTRUCTION 6A. Site Development Permit 08-22: Katharine Elliott: Site Development Permit application for fa�ade improvement to all elevations of the building at 116 S. State Street, Ukiah, Corner of Church and State Streets, APN 002-226-08. Associate Planner Faso commented: • The applicant is proposing exterior modifications to the existing building that currently contain four storefronts • The project has been referred to the DRB for review and recommendations to the Zoning Administrator because it is located within the Downtown Design District and highly visible. • The proposed comprehensive fa�ade improvement includes: o Replacement of the existing awning cover on the east elevation. o Introduction of brick wainscot to match existing beneath the storefront windows on the east elevation. o New board and batt siding with trim above the existing brick on the north, south and west elevations. o New exterior paint o New cornice details Design Review Board September 11, 2008 Page 1 o Enclosure of the utility meters on the west elevation. • The applicant is proposing new exterior paint color for the building that include tones of gray and brown specifically Somoya for the Cornice trim, and block details on the pilasters, Travertine for the repainted brick on the east and north elevations and the door trim pilasters on the east side, Khaki Shorts for the board and batt siding and window inserts on the south elevation, and Stone Wall for the door and window trim on the south side. • Mahogany is proposed for the new Sunbrella awning material along the east elevation. • The project is located in the Downtown Design District where the Design Guidelines for Commercial Development in the City of Ukiah apply. • The historical building is highly visible from State Street having City heritage and charm. Judy Pruden provided written comments as follows: • The building was last remodeled in the 1980s. • The east elevation should retain its current look. The parapet should not be broken nor should the fa�ade be covered in board and batt, since neither is historical accurate for the Downtown. • If the applicant desires to change the look below the front awnings, this would be in keeping with the long history of modernizing the front entrance. • The cornice that runs on three sides of the building should have a wider board below the crown molding. • The new proposed east elevation affects the historical integrity of the building and should be reviewed closely. Katherine Elliot stated her intent is to upgrade/improve/maintain and preserve for future use the historical vitality/character of this very important `stand alone' building in the Downtown. Essentially, her intent is to preserve its original historical character as much as possible without modernizing it. It would be beneficial for her financially to complete the desired building improvements in phases and asked for input from the DRB Members how this can be accomplished. She also supports replacing the damaged awning facing State Street with a metal awning as opposed to cloth. Replacement of the existing damaged awning is a high priority. Replacing the damaged awning with a metal awning would not be an option if she intends on doing the other fa�ade improvements referenced above because it would be too costly. It is important to the applicant that the building look respectable. Staff/applicanUDRB Members referred to the color renderings for the building and addressed the project as follows: • The applicant intends to clean up the corner of area where the utility meters are located. • Because the proposed fa�ade improvements/remodel are extensive/comprehensive, the project must be reviewed by the Zoning Administrator as a Minor Site Development Permit. • The applicant intends to retain the cloth awnings on the Church Street side of the building because they are relatively new and in good condition. • Vice Chair Menton commented a corrugated awning would look nice. • Vice Chair Menton is familiar with the building because as a contractor, he made significant interior and exterior improvements to the building in the 1980s at the request of a different owner. • From an architectural perspective and in keeping with the original theme/character of the historical building, there was discussion whether it would be appropriate and/or necessary to change the siding and apply new board and batt siding with overlay `battons' above the brick on the various elevations and at what level since there are existing design treatments on the building to break up the mass and provide decorative articulation. Design Review Board September 11, 2008 Page 2 • There was discussion whether the existing design features are compatible with the historical theme of the building. The cornice is not historical. It may be that a wider band may be more in keeping with the historical aspects of the building where the cornice is. The application of stucco foam for the crown molding may be an option. • Richard Palafox referred to the decorative band in the middle above the brick on the front of the building that faces State Street and the band above the cornice on the top of the building, noting the band is pealing. • Vice Chair Menton did not support removal of the band on the top of the building because the material is very sound. • The Committee questioned the cornice and parapet and whether the decorate elements serve a function and/or is visually effective. The building needs a cleaner roofline possibly incorporating board and batt with a strong crown. • It was noted the Design Guidelines for Commercial Development in the Downtown Design District specifically address facades and storefront openings, encouraging them to be varied and articulated in such a manner to add visual variety and distinctiveness. The guidelines do discourage long, straight facades without openings or architecturally pleasing treatments to break up the mass to allow for a nice visual presentation. • There was also discussion concerning the architectural effectiveness of the columns on the front of the building and how they should likely end with `something.' • There was discussion concerning the `brick' portions of the building wherein it was noted the exterior brick is not in the best condition and leaks. The best option would be to paint over the brick as opposed to powering washing to its natural state because the brick is also not of the best quality and/or visually pleasing. • There was discussion about painting the brick more earth tone colors utilizing two different tones for contrast and/or whether the entire brick wall on the Church Street side of the building should be painted one solid color. • Member Nicholson supports making fa�ade improvements in phases since money for the cost of the proposed improvements is an issue for the applicant. Phase I could include replacing the damaged awning with cloth for now and later replacing the awning with metal as part of another improvement phase. • Member Nicholson stated extending the board and batt to the top of the building may be more historical appropriate than breaking up the building mass utilizing crown molding differentials as shown in the renderings. Also, the breaking up of the crown on the top of the building does not appear to be historical appropriate. He supports providing for an architectural feature that is `heavier' and makes a `stronger' statement relative to the crown on top of the building. • Member Hise acknowledged that while budgeting for improvements is necessary, he recommends at this juncture implementing a metal awning and the hiring of a consultant to paint the building an aesthetically pleasing color. He does not recommend renovation to the building crown/parapet at this time. The paint and new awning will do a lot aesthetically to the building. • Acting Chair Liden is in agreement with Member Hise, and stated the proposed entire retrofit can be done later. Therefore, it is not necessary to add more board and batt until it is time to complete the comprehensive retrofit. • Associate Planner Faso stated if the plan is to move forward on a new awning and paint the building rather than a comprehensive retrofit, there is no need for the project to go the Zoning Administrator as a Minor Site Development Permit. • The Committee was in agreement painting the building and crown/parapet will provide for a nice visual presentation and a cleaner look. • There was a brief discussion concerning signage for the building and how this can be effectively accomplished. Design Review Board September 11, 2008 Page 3 7. MATTERS FROM THE BOARD None. 8. MATTERS FROM STAFF None. 9. SET NEXT MEETING/ADJOURNMENT: The next regular meeting will be October 9, 2008 from 3:00—5:00 p.m. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 3:02 p.m. Tom Liden, Acting Chair Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary Design Review Board September 11, 2008 Page 4