HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRBM_06252009 ��'�"�°�� City of Ukiah, CA
,�'�'="���.
;* � +� Design Review Board
'��+i►�o�r.���,
1 MINUTES
2
3 Regular Meeting June 25, 2009
4 Conference Room 5 3:00 p.m.
5 Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue
6 1. CALL TO ORDER
7 2. ROLL CALL Present: Tom Hise, Nick Thayer,
8 Jody Cole, Tom Liden
9 Richard Moser, Chair
10 Absent: Alan Nicholson, Estok Menton
11 Others Present: Robert Gitlin
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 - N/A
19
20 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS — None
21
22 6. RIGHT TO APPEAL
23 Chair Moser read the appeal process. For matters heard at this meeting, the final date
24 to appear is July 6, 2009.
25
26 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
27 7B. Site Development Permit 08-23, proposed substantial faced upgrade and
28 awning replacement to the building at 262-274 Smith Street, Ukiah APN 002-
29 191-23. Recommendation to Planning Commission for Site Development Permit.
30
31 Moser recused himself since he was acting on behalf of the applicant.
32
33 Staff noted the project is represented differently having more clarity than the last time the
34 DRB saw the project. The project will be seen by the Planning Commission as a Site
35 Development Permit because it involves a substantial remodel to the exterior of the
36 building. The project is not eligible for FIP funding because the property is located one
37 parcel outside the of the existing FIP boundaries. As part of the process to revise the
38 boundaries, this property may be become eligible for FIP funds. Any structural issues will
39 be addressed by staff as part of the Site Development Permit process.
40
41 Richard Moser stated the building would have to be assessed and reengineered to
42 support the stone surface treatment and will be coordinated with the City when the
43 sidewalk is replaced. The first step in the renovation process will be to address the
44 structural component of the project.
45
46 Robert Gitlin stated the plan is for the City construct new curb, gutter and sidewalk and
47 this will trigger an engineering assessment of the buildings and the need to redo the
Design Review Board June 25,2009
Page 1
1 entire foundation for the front portions of the buildings. He stated the design for the
2 building was chosen because he likes the work done by Norm's Art Stone. He noted his
3 project will complement the newly remodeled real estate building southeast of his
4 buildings.
5
6 It was noted there are other stone buildings on School Street in the Downtown.
7
8 Robert Gitlin expressed concern about having street trees and stated the area has
9 problems with the soil and compaction when the buildings were originally constructed
10 whereby the street trees could further contribute to water penetration in front of the
11 buildings and further add to the instability of the soil.
12
13 It was the consensus of the DRB to recommend the following with the project to return to
14 DRB for review of the recommended changes prior to Planning Commission review of
15 the Site Development Permit.
16
17 Awnings:
18 • Prefer a shed style awning with open ends as opposed to barrel-shaped awning.
19 • Align the awnings with one another without coming down too close to the top of
20 the windows.
21 • Provide color samples for the awnings. Majority prefers different colored awnings
22 that are compatible with the storefront colors. Okay to repeat awning colors to
23 coordinate with storefront color.
24 • Use a darker tone for the color of the awnings to provide an aesthetically
25 pleasing contrast with the lighter colors chosen for the storefronts.
26 Siqns:
27 • Provide a signage program as part of the Site Development Permit to include:
28 blade signs and small window signs would be optional and at the discretion of the
29 building owner. Any lighting proposed should be included. Do not prefer signage
30 on the awnings.
31 Utilities:
32 • Prefer the undergrounding of the utilities or bring the utilities from the existing
33 pole to a common location, preferably on the side of one of the buildings and
34 redistributed back through the individual units.
35 Architecture and Details:
36 • Wrap the stone treatment around the corner of the buildings.
37 • Consider raising the roofline on a few of the buildings to add character and to
38 provide variation in building height.
39 • Encourage the use of new energy efficient windows and there are tax credits
40 available. Retain existing window frames or replace with new that are similar.
41 The stone treatment shown on the elevations is "heavy."
42 • Encourage different design for the doors. Could use energy efficient metal frame
43 doors.
44 Street Trees:
45 • Prefer street trees rather than sidewalk planters provided they can be installed
46 without creating drainage problems and adding to the instability of the soil. If
47 street trees are not feasible due to soil conditions, planters would be acceptable.
48 Need to make sure that planters are secured and irrigated.
49
50
Design Review Board June 25, 2009
Page 2
1 7A. Fa�ade Improvement Grant 09-04, Sports Zone Pizza, 720 N. State Street,
2 estimates for proposed finish to building exterior.
3
4 Staff comments:
5 • The DRB made recommendations about this project at the regular March 12,
6 2009, DRB meeting. The Board expressed concern that the cost estimate in the
7 sum of $13,425 was too expensive just to paint the building and questioned
8 whether there were other costs such as pre-painting treatments that were
9 necessary. There was no cost breakdown substantiating this expense as shown
10 on the summary of the costs for the project.
11 • The Board asked the applicant to come back with bids for comparison purposes
12 to substantiate the proposed cost estimate.
13 • Two bids were provided by licensed general contractors. The cost estimates are
14 higher than the original improvement quote submitted. However, it appears that
15 the estimate includes more than paint.
16 • The actual estimates must be submitted to staff because the invoices must
17 match when the job is completed in order to substantiate funding.
18 • The intent of today's meeting to for the Board to approve one of the two cost
19 estimates. Since staff is not qualified to determine the appropriateness of the
20 bids, the bids are being forwarded to the Board for review and approval.
21
22 Member Thayer asked about revisiting the landscaping for the project. He is supportive
23 of providing for more landscaping in the ground rather than landscaping in pots.
24
25 Staff stated the Board has already made funding decisions at the regular March meeting
26 about the landscaping and this aspect cannot be revisited. At the March meeting, the
27 Board acted not to approve the landscaping pots, but did indicate that they would
28 support additional in-ground planting and that the money requested for the landscaping
29 pots could be used for in-ground landscaping.
30
31 The Board raised questions about how project management & supervision, insurance
32 and profit & overhead should be treated for cost estimates/bids so as to comply with the
33 FIP eligibility requirements.
34
35 Staff indicated that they are not included in the FIP eligible expenses and that this is a
36 matter for discussion at another meeting and could be revisited as part of the proposed
37 revisions to the FIP.
38
39 M/S Hise/Cole to approve the low bid in the sum of $18,257 and to clarify that the
40 money for "in-ground" landscaping could include the money originally requested for the
41 landscaping pots. Motion carried (4-0).
42
43 8. NEW BUSINESS— None
44
45 9. MATTERS FROM THE BOARD:
46
47 10. MATTERS FROM STAFF:
48 Staff provided the members with information and schedule of topics for the Downtown
49 Zoning Code project series of public workshops with the Planning Commission
50 beginning July 8, 2009.
Design Review Board June 25, 2009
Page 3
1 11. SET NEXT MEETING/ADJOURNMENT
2 The next regular meeting will be July 9, 2009 which will be a joint meeting with the
3 Finance Review Committee to discuss the Fa�ade Improvement Program. There being
4 no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:02 p.m.
5
6
7 Richard Moser, Chair
8
9
10 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
11
12
Design Review Board June 25, 2009
Page 4