HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRBM_02122009 ��'�"�°�� City of Ukiah, CA
,�'�'="���.
;* � +� Design Review Board
'��+i►�o�r.���,
1 MINUTES
2
3 Regular Meeting February 12, 2009
4 Conference Room 3 3:00 p.m.
5 Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue
6 1. CALL TO ORDER
7 2. ROLL CALL Present: Tom Liden, Alan Nicholson, Tom Hise,
8 Nick Thayer, Estok Menton, Vice Chair
9 Jody Cole
10 Absent: Richard Moser, Chair
11 Others Present: Zachary Schat
12 Staff Present: Jennifer Faso, Associate Planner
13 Kim Jordan, Senior Planner
14 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
15
16 3. CORRESPONDENCE — None
17
18 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 8, 2009 & January 22, 2009
19 Page 1, lines 31-32, revised to read, "Member Thayer inquired about the review process
20 relative to native plant species for the Ukiah Natural Foods project."
21
22 Page 3, line 3-4, revised to read, "On a case by case basis, structural work to support a
23 new fa�ade or storefront may be eligible."
24
25 Page 3, line 6, revised to read, "On a case by case basis, paving may be eligible.
26
27 Page 4, line 17-21, revised to read, "The FIP has made substantial improvements to the
28 Downtown by funding paint and awnings. The DRB members are generally in agreement
29 that FIP funding should not be utilized for maintenance purposes because it is the
30 property owner's responsibility to maintain the building. However, there are cases where
31 a new property owner desires to improve the physical appearance of the building by
32 replacing the awning and/or painting the building and is encouraged by the DRB."
33
34 M/S Nicholson/Liden to approve January 8, 2009 minutes, as amended. Motion carried
35 by an all AYE voice vote of the members present.
36
37 M/S Liden/Nicholson to approve January 22, 2009 minutes, as submitted. Motion
38 carried by an all AYE voice vote of the members present with Vice Chair Menton
39 abstaining.
40
41 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS — None
42
43 6. RIGHT TO APPEAL
44 Chair Moser read the appeal process. For matters heard at this meeting, the final date
45 to appeal is February 23, 2009.
46
Design Review Board February 12,2009
Page 1
1 Member Nicholson stepped down from participating as a DRB member because he is
2 the applicant for the Schat's Courthouse Bakery/Cafe project.
3
4 7. NEW BUSINESS
5 09-01 SDP, FIP: Major Site Development Permit and Fa�ade Improvement Grant:
6 Schat's Courthouse Bakery, 113 W. Perkins Street, APN 002-226-002 & 03. Proposed
7 exterior renovation. Recommendations to the Planning Commission and Finance Review
8 Committee.
9
10 Associate Planner Faso presented a staff report and advised the proposed project
11 includes:
12 • New structural steel moment frame
13 • New Doors and Windows
14 • New Awning
15 • New Pole Sign
16 • New Lighting
17 • New stone tile cladding beneath windows
18 • New color palette
19
20 Staff advised the accompanying Downtown Design District Commercial Design
21 Guidelines Checklist has been completed by the applicant wherein staff will incorporate
22 the comments/recommendations made by the DRB into the document for review by the
23 Planning Commission at the discretionary review hearing for the project.
24
25 Applicant Alan Nicholson and owner Zackary Schat explained the scope of the
26 project and project design by referring to the exterior/interior construction plans and
27 materials/color storyboard relative to compliance with ADA regulations and accessibility
28 triggered as a result of the type of improvements proposed, compatibility with
29 neighboring structures, structural elements pertinent to the new structural steel moment
30 frame and new doors/windows, type of improvements to provide for a more proficient
31 operation, placement of the awning compared to the existing awning, signage/lighting,
32 existing service door, pedestrian-friendly amenities, landscaping, and discussion of
33 materials and color schemes for the building and awning.
34
35 Zackary Schat stated the building was substantially remodeled in 2002 and is expectant
36 the proposed new remodel will provide for a nice presentation and more effective
37 operation.
38
39 Applicant/DRB discussion:
40 • Awning — the color proposed is to defuse the light that comes off the Courthouse
41 located across the street.
42 • The steel frame for the awning will have a steeper pitch and will be not as visible
43 as the existing awning.
44 • Because of the existing sidewalk width and fact the structure has a zero lot line
45 and built to the property line there is minimum space for landscaping features.
46 • The DRB agreed allowing for greenery is of importance and they are not
47 supportive of hanging decorative vegetative pots. The applicant would be
48 amenable to adding planters where feasible provided they are not in the public
49 right-of-way and are smaller in size than the previous planters. The window sills
50 are not wide enough to accompany small vegetative planters.
Design Review Board February 12, 2009
Page 2
1 • There was discussion about the proposed new steel moment frame for support
2 purposes and other design aspects proposed so the two storefronts (111 and
3 113 West Perkins) would be visually and harmoniously compatible with one
4 another, more architecturally pleasing, and consistent with the Commercial
5 Development Design Guidelines.
6 • Pedestrian friendly amenities such as benches were discussed. The DRB is in
7 agreement with the applicant that narrow benches should be attached to the
8 building and situated off the pavement for ease of cleaning/maintenance and to
9 deter vandalism to be approved by the Public Works Department.
10 • The DRB acknowledged while the building is not listed in the formal historical
11 building inventory list nor does it have significant historical value because of its
12 many modifications, it represents a highly regarded historical social fabric the
13 community appreciates and enjoys in the Downtown area.
14 • The owner commented on the design of the sign and how it correlates to his
15 family history.
16 • There was discussion concerning the wood proposed for the building. The DRB
17 supports the use of recycled wood.
18 • There was discussion concerning the entrance way and use of the gray tile and
19 need for wider doors and a more open entry look with the use of wood siding. It
20 was noted Brazilian wood is a sustainable material.
21 • There was also discussion concerning the light and possible use of lighting filters
22 for the sign.
23
24 The DRB is supportive of the proposed project and recommends:
25 • The use of recycled wood under the awning.
26 • Encourages the implementation of benches/planters in front of the building
27 where feasible.
28 • Softer light on the sign.
29
30 M/S Hise/Cole to recommend the Planning Commission accept the design as proposed
31 with the recommendations made above. Motion carried by an all AYE voice vote of the
32 members present.
33
34 Senior Planner Jordan asked the DRB to consider the proposed preliminary cost
35 estimates to possibly determine which items are eligible under the program criteria
36 guidelines.
37
38 The Applicant is requesting the maximum he is eligible for in the sum $46,945. He has
39 previously received FIP funding.
40
41 Funding determinations are based on compliance with the current adopted URA FIP
42 guidelines even though the DRB is currently in the process of reviewing the guidelines
43 for possible revision as they relate to the Program's:
44 PURPOSE:
45 1. To revitalize Ukiah's Downtown Design District through a public/private
46 partnership to stimulate investment;
47 2. To reduce blight;
48 3. To improve the physical appearance of commercial buildings and related site
49 elements.
50 And,
Design Review Board February 12, 2009
Page 3
1 PROGRAM EMPHASIZES projects should be or have:
2 1. Buildings with deteriorated facades;
3 2. Historic buildings and sites;
4 3. Landscaping and related site elements in highly visible locations such as City
5 gateways and the Downtown core.
6 4. Improvements that incentivize private investment that would not otherwise be
7 undertaken, consistent with Redevelopment Agency and City objectives;
8 5. Buildings and site elements in significantly blighted areas, serving as a catalyst
9 for investment by other property owners in the area.
10
11 The building is not in `blighted' condition, which is a FIP funding requirement according
12 to Redevelopment State law. The term `blighted' is also subjective.
13
14 The DRB is of the opinion the proposed remodel of the building is very important to the
15 continuing revitalization of the Downtown and that the City is getting a huge return on the
16 FIP grant since the property owner is putting up approximately two-thirds of his own
17 money and that `two' out of the `three' required criteria relative to the `Purpose' have
18 been met. The proposed improvement would benefit the whole area, as well as
19 preserve/maintain the character of the neighborhood.
20
21 M/S Hise/Liden to recommend the Finance Review Committee approve funding for
22 improvements to SchaYs Courthouse Bakery not to exceed $46,945 and to recommend
23 incorporating a visual acknowledgement that FIP funds were used to help finance
24 improvements to the building.
25
26 8. MATTERS FROM THE BOARD
27 • Update of Downtown Streetscape Improvement Plan
28 No discussion.
29 • 2008-2009 RDA Fa�ade Improvement Program Totals
30 The DRB reviewed the aforementioned document. Staff advised the amount remaining
31 for the FIP 2008-09 funding cycle in the sum of $74,635.94 will not carry forward to the
32 next funding cycle that ends June 2009. The amount budgeted for 2009-2010 is
33 $150,000. The DRB supports the continuance of working on a more clearly defined FIP
34 with appropriate criteria for evaluating projects to conserve money for larger projects.
35
36 9. MATTERS FROM STAFF
37 Continuation of Fa�ade Improvement Grant Program discussion of potential revisions to
38 the Fa�ade Improvement Program.
39
40 The DRB deferred discussion to the next regular meeting.
41
42 10. SET NEXT MEETING/ADJOURNMENT
43 The next regular meeting will be March 12, 2009 at 3:00 p.m.
44
45 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:11 p.m.
46
47
48
49 Estok Menton, Vice Chair
50
51 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
Design Review Board February 12, 2009
Page 4