The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDRBM_06152011 G�ity of 1lktah City of Ukiah, CA Design Review Board 1 MINUTES 2 3 Regular Meeting June 1, 2011 4 � 5 Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue 6 1. CALL TO ORDER: Acting Chair Menton called the Design Review Board to 7 order at 3:00 p.m. 8 9 2. ROLL CALL Present: Tom Liden, Alan Nicholson, Nick Thayer, 10 Estok Menton 11 Absent: Tom Hise, Richard Moser 12 Staff Present: Kim Jordan, Senior Planner 13 Jennifer Faso, Associate Planner 14 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary 15 Others present: Howie Hawkes 16 17 3. CORRESPONDENCE: None 18 19 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 12, 2011 minutes 20 Approval of minutes was deferred. 21 22 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS: None 23 24 6. RIGHT TO APPEAL: There are no appealable items on this agenda. 25 26 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 27 28 7A. Continue working on the Downtown Zoning Code Design District Guidelines. 29 30 The DRB continued review of the DZC Design District Guidelines by discussing buildings 31 they like and identifying the features they like and including these feaures in the 32 accompanying table for the three districts. 33 34 Began with Board discussion about general buildings in the photographs submitted by 35 Member Thayer that the Board have included in the DZC design table of buildings they 36 like. 37 38 Example 8: South of Market Area (SOMA) Proiect, San Francisco 39 Likes 40 ■ retention of original storefront; nice blend of old with new; nice adaptation of 41 original form from old to new and how to effectively separate old from new 42 ■ articulation of fa�ade 43 ■ good use of color 44 ■ mixed use with commercial on bottom floor and residential upstairs 45 ■ craftsman style of cornice 46 ■ exterior balcony on upper stories 47 ■ pop-outs' of upper stories 48 ■ working orientation with change from front to back of building Design Review Board June 1, 2011 Page 1 1 ■ roof pitch 2 ■ height of first floor retail space 3 4 Example 6: Barn Diva, Healdsburq 5 Likes 6 ■ Architectural style 7 ■ First floor height 8 ■ Mixed use, ground floor commercial with residential above 9 10 General comments: 11 ■ Building has traditional look. 12 ■ Building appropriate for Main Street. 13 ■ Form & materials speak to rural vernacular. 14 ■ Building is setback, questioned whether setback requirement would apply. 15 ■ Building would work if constructed to sidewalk. 16 ■ Corrugated metal would look good. 17 ■ Materials would have to be different to withstand this areas climate. 18 ■ Windows could use treatment to reduce heat impacts from hot summer sun. 19 20 21 Example 10: Portola Valley Civic Center 22 Likes: 23 ■ Scale and proportion of building 24 ■ quiet feel, natural appearance 25 ■ abstract appearance to fit use 26 ■ covered entranceways are inviting to public 27 ■ sustainable, surFace treatments 28 ■ covered spaces 29 ■ window form 30 ■ building setbacks 31 ■ agricultural vernacular' 32 33 General comments: 34 ■ Style would not look good in Downtown, but could on Main Street. 35 ■ Form may not be right in all instances. 36 ■ Buildings are earthlike,. Building may have Leed and/or `green' application. 37 ■ Building encourages experimentation. 38 ■ Consider sustainability versus performance for buildings. 39 ■ Consider whether a building would require ongoing maintenance and construct 40 building accordingly with materials that have substance/durability and are 41 sustainable. 42 43 Buildinqs in the Historic District 44 45 Masonic Hall Buildinq/Mendocino Book Company, 102 School Street 46 Likes: 47 ■ entryway 48 ■ awnings 49 ■ brick use and color allowing for a `substantial' looking building 50 ■ good orientation and form 51 ■ good first story height Design Review Board June 1, 2011 Page 2 1 ■ nice application of ornamentals 2 ■ likes separator made distinguishing between first and second floors 3 ■ band on top & bottom of building 4 ■ A nice solid `substantial' looking building 5 ■ Window orientation is good, but material could be of better quality 6 ■ Building is a good height 7 ■ Brick is of good quality 8 ■ Has a soft/subtle appearance, yet substantial presence 9 ■ Nice stonework articulation and treatment 10 ■ Has two faces, on West Perkins Street and South School Street that are 11 tastefully crafted, provides effective accessibility, and gives the building character 12 ■ Bottom band not original 13 14 Mammina Buildinq, 201 and 203 South State Street 15 Likes: 16 ■ recessed functional awnings and space between awnings 17 ■ stepped parapets 18 ■ lighting features on one building 19 ■ freestanding blocks on parapet for other building 20 ■ entryways/nice entry space 21 ■ color scheme for buildings 22 ■ use of different colors on parapet to break up mass of buildings 23 ■ 1920s vernacular for retail use 24 25 McKinley Buildinq, 200 South State Street 26 Likes: 27 ■ substantial, brick 28 ■ chamfered corner 29 ■ corner entry 30 ■ balcony 31 ■ steel brackets, parapet detailing, cornice 32 ■ scale & proportion of windows and that they are recessed 33 • arched dentils 34 ■ Is a nice looking mixed-use building with entry courtyard at rear of building 35 36 Odd Fellows Buildinq, 160 E. Standlev Street 37 Likes: 38 ■ `Exaggerated' 2nd story windows 39 • great detailing over windows 40 ■ classical-looking fa�ade bracket 41 ■ paint on second story 42 ■ recessed entry 43 ■ cornice work 44 ■ vertical windows, ornamental retailing over windows 45 ■ `classical' looking building 46 ■ a lot of architectural detail on second story 47 48 General comments: 49 ■ First story has been poorly remodeled and materials used not architecturally 50 compatible with second story. 51 Design Review Board June 1, 2011 Page 3 1 Pano Stephens Law Office Buildinq, 201 S. State Street 2 Likes: 3 ■ Deeply recessed entry 4 ■ presentation of signage & address on building, very tasteful and progressive 5 ■ awning over sidewalk 6 ■ orientation of building to corner 7 8 General comments: 9 ■ Did not like treatment and/or design of windows on south side of building. 10 ■ Building as remodeled may not be good example of a building design for historic 11 district. 12 13 Patrona, Shoefly and Sox, Boutique 120, 120 & 130 West Standlev 14 Likes: 15 ■ shared recessed entry 16 ■ single awning over two entries and awning with gable 17 ■ stepped parapet 18 ■ signage for Patrona building 19 ■ cornice dentils 20 ■ lighting for evening for Patrona building looks good allowing for an inviting dining 21 experience 22 ■ architecture of buildings provides a lot of space for display of inerchandise 23 24 US Post Office, 224 North Oak Street 25 Likes: 26 ■ signage 27 ■ exterior light fixture 28 ■ building is substantial and has substance 29 ■ how window `schedule' wraps 30 • staircase entry 31 ■ plain with subtle detail 32 ■ pop-outs in front of building 33 • integral architecture 34 ■ building is timeless, has nice proportions and is symmetrically balanced 35 36 Coffee Critic 8� Apartments 37 Likes: 38 ■ gallery 39 ■ deep recessed storefronts 40 ■ mixed-use 41 ■ overhang for shading 42 ■ outdoor seating 43 ■ recessed exterior wall 44 ■ use of materials 45 ■ substantiallook 46 ■ good adaptive reuse of a former muffler shop 47 48 Yoqa Mendocino buildinq 49 Likes: 50 ■ recessed doors and windows 51 ■ front porch/entry Design Review Board June 1, 2011 Page 4 1 ■ repetition of arches 2 ■ setback of second story 3 ■ parapet 4 ■ courtyard 5 ■ nice color scheme 6 7 8. MATTERS FROM THE BOARD: None 8 9 9. MATTERS FROM STAFF: None 10 11 10. SET NEXT MEETING/ADJOURNMENT: Wednesday June 8, 2011 at 3:00 p.m. 12 The meeting adjourned at 5:09 p.m. 13 14 15 Richard Moser, Chair 16 17 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary Design Review Board June 1, 2011 Page 5