HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRBM_07202011 ��ty � u�iah City of Ukiah, CA
Design Review Board
1 MINUTES
2
3 Regular Meeting July 20, 2011
4
5 Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue
6 1. CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chair Hise called the Design Review Board called the meeting
7 to order at 3:15 p.m.
8
9 2. ROLL CALL Present: Tom Liden, Alan Nicholson, Nick
10 Thayer, Howie Hawkes, Vice Chair Tom Hise
11 Absent: Estok Menton
12 Staff Present: Kim Jordan, Senior Planner
13 Jennifer Faso, Associate Planner
14 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
15 Others present: None.
16
17 3. CORRESPONDENCE: None
18
19 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: -June 8, 2011 and June 15, 2011
20 M/S Liden/Nicholson to approve June 8, 2011 and June 15, 2011 minutes, as submitted.
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 7A. Continue working on development of Downtown Zoning Code (DZC) Design District
28 Guidelines, including incorporating the Downtown Design District Guidelines for Signs
29 and Materials into the DZC Guidelines.
30
31 Staff noted Member Nicholson attended a recent City Council meeting and asked about the
32 possibility of modifying the City Sign Ordinance.
33
34 Member Nicholson:
35 • Modification to the Sign Ordinance is a much 'larger discussion' than just the DRB
36 recognizing the need for a better working Ordinance.
37 • Understands the Sign Ordinance is one document and the DZC another whereby the two
38 documents must not conflict with one another. Therefore, it is important that design
39 guidelines for the DZC be formulated for signage.
40 • It may be after formulating design guidelines for the DZC that what comes out of this are
41 ideas on how to make the Sign Ordinance a better working document.
42
43 There was discussion about signage in general including the welcome to the City of Ukiah Sign
44 located south of Ukiah and the outdated Welcome to Masonite sign at the Airport and the need to
45 come up with a plan to replace these signs. It may be that the community should become
46 involved by establishing a committee because committees can be helpful. The 'TOT' committee
47 does good work for the community so it may be beneficial to getting this committee to help with
48 signage for Ukiah.
49
50 There was also discussion concerning the Downtown directional signs that have been
51 constructed for the Downtown core and the next step to getting them installed and functioning. It
52 was noted Ukiah Main Street has been involved with this project. There has been a problem with
Design Review Board July 20, 2011
Page 1
1 the engineering and design of the base/footings that mount the signs whereby the footings for the
2 signs were required to be designed by an engineer.
3
4 DRB: It may be this is the time in the guideline document to include language that addresses
5 problems/issues that concern signs such as engineering/structural requirements, necessary
6 permits, placement of signs, design preferences, and/or other relevant processes by identifying
7 what elements are codified or a guideline to assist applicants with their projects.
8
9 Staff:
10 • Noted site plans were required for each of the directional signs. This requirement is
11 included as part of the Sign Permit application. The primary delay was the lack of the
12 submittal of the site plan and the time it took the applicant to submit the required site
13 plans. The sign permit/building permit has been approved by the City and is ready to be
14 picked by the applicant.
15 • Submittal requirements are currently noted on the Sign Permit Checklist. The
16 requirement for an engineered footing is determined by the Building Code.
17
18 Signs and Materials:
19
20 Staff recommends the DRB continue discussion of the DZC Design District Guidelines including
21 incorporating the Downtown Design District Guidelines for signs and materials in the DZC
22 Guidelines and encouraged the Board think in districts as to what they recommend:
23
24 DRB comments:
25
26 Historic Downtown
27 • No freestanding/monument signs.
28 • Discourage can signs and can signs that are back lit that have a plastic front.
29 • Projecting/Blade signs are acceptable if of a discreet size.
30 • Encourage building signs, window signs provided compliance with the Sign Ordinance
31 that signage can cover no more than 25°/o of the window area.
32 • Hanging signs are fine provided they are adequately set back or meet the clearance
33 requirements in the Code.
34 • Building signs are acceptable with appropriate lighting.
35 • Signs should be in style and consistent with the age and design characteristics of the
36 building.
37
38 Noted:
39 • Box/can sign on Shoefly and Sock building is a nice design. The sign is integrated into
40 the awning, is a unique application and is very effective.
41 • Box sign for Ukiah Natural Foods is not a good looking sign.
42 • Back lit can sign on Perkins Street and School Street for a hair salon is artistically
43 designed. This particular sign is a custom made sign and not the typical back lit can sign
44 with a plastic front.
45 • Sign for `Prime Market' on Mill Street is unattractive and is an example of a sign the
46 Board would not recommend.
47 • The BeBops sign is another example of a nice looking sign.
48 • Likes the materials selection for the sign on the Pano Stephens building that consists of
49 metal lettering that is very nice and highly complementary to the design of the building.
50 • The County Child Support building on E. Perkins Street and State Street has nice
51 signage whereby the lettering is raised from the building wall and is appropriately lit.
52
53 Main Street
54 • Generally discourage can signs unless artistically designed.
55 • Encourage building signs.
Design Review Board June 20, 2011
Page 2
1 • Window signs are acceptable.
2 • Projecting/blade signs are acceptable if of a reasonable size.
3
4 Perkins Street Corridor
5 • Freestanding/monument signs are acceptable, if such signs work given the street
6 frontage requirements/standards and building types. The preference for monument style
7 signs with a base having a maximum 6-12-foot height depending upon the design. For
8 instance, the monument sign in the Pear Tree Center is a massive plastic sign with a
9 base, but what if the sign had a different design then the overall scale would not be as
10 pronounced.
11 • Should the height of a sign be measured from the grade adjacent to the sign or the
12 sidewalk?The design plays a key role as to how this can be accomplished, citing signage
13 in other cities that have great signs that focus on the design which is related to the design
14 of the project as opposed to the scale/proportion of the sign.
15 • Discourage can signs unless artistically designed. Perkins Street is a street where people
16 are traveling by car rather than walking as opposed to the Downtown or on Main Street
17 so it may be signs should be somewhat different in this district compared to other
18 districts. Signs in the Perkins Street Corridor must be visible to persons traveling in cars
19 because this district is a thoroughfare.
20 • Should take into precedence what signage is existing because those that exist are
21 'grandfathered' in to avoid an undesirable mix.
22 • Window signs are acceptable.
23 • Projecting/blade signs are acceptable if of a reasonable size.
24
25 Staff:
26 • The building types for the DZC include: Courtyard, Rear Yard, and Side Yard. If there
27 was a Rear Yard or Side Yard building, there would likely be room for a freestanding
28 sign.
29 • Understands the DRB does not want to see pole mounted freestanding signs.
30 • It appears the DRB's preference in the Perkins Street Corridor is for a monument style
31 freestanding sign with a lower profile.
32 • Will rewrite the language on page 14 of the Downtown Design District Guidelines
33 regarding sign types considered for commercial buildings by the DRB to be incorporated
34 into the design guidelines for the DZC.
35 • The Sign Ordinance includes a 25% maximum window coverage rule for window signs
36 which is often violated.
37
38 DRB:
39 • Lighting, including backlighting for signage is important provided illumination is downcast,
40 shielded, does not spill over to neighboring properties and complies with the International
41 Dark Sky Association standards concerning night lighting.
42 • Neon lighting acceptable in all districts, if tastefully designed.
43 • LED lighting preferred.
44 • Addressing the lighting sources for signs may be too technical for the DRB.
45 • The DRB could recommend sign styles if examples were provided in the DZC design
46 guidelines for signage.
47 • Likes hand painted signs or effective use of vinyl decals that are laminated onto the sign
48 board.
49 • Likes individual lettering on buildings such as on the Pano Stephens building or County
50 Child Support building.
51 • Sandwich boards are essentially temporary signs that are typically moved back and forth
52 on a daily basis. They are acceptable in all districts provided they are not displayed in the
53 public right-of-way that would require an encroachment permit. Sandwich boards should
54 be of a nice design and should not be of plastic material. There was discussion about the
Design Review Board June 20, 2011
Page 3
1 variations in sandwich board designs/styles and which styles are better than others in
2 terms of aesthetics.
3 • Likes sandwich board signs because a person can tell when a store is open or closed.
4 • Vice Chair Hise noted Caltrans does not allow sandwich board signs in the public right-
5 of-way and cited Hopland as an example because Highway 101 runs through the city.
6 • Discussed what types of materials would be acceptable for sandwich board signs and
7 they include wood and metal. Sandwich boards can be painted. No pinwheels displayed
8 on sandwich board signs.
9
10 DRB:
11 • Discussion about some of the elements that make a sign work for a building and
12 examples were cited.
13 • Discussion about what constitute temporary signage. What about the many flag looking
14 signs that businesses are using to advertise that are all around town?
15
16 Staff: Such signs are considered banners and are temporary signs that are not allowed without a
17 banner permit. Banners displayed more than 30 days are in violation of the City Sign Ordinance
18 and a code enforcement issue.
19
20 DRB: Discussion about how large a sign should be for a single tenant or two-tenant building?
21
22 Staff: The rule is signs cannot exceed the height of a building. The Board should determine
23 what the height should be for a freestanding sign and could formulate a different rule/approach for
24 signage for multi-tenant buildings.
25
26 DRB: Cautioned circumstances where a developer decided not to put in a commercial/retail
27 business because that person could not get the signage he/she wants. How far does the DRB
28 want to go with exceptions to the rule? The design guidelines for the DZC should spell out what
29 signage is recommended and/or preferred so the developer understands what is acceptable in
30 terms of design whereby the existing City Sign Ordinance regulates square footage, size and
31 other rules that do not necessarily correlate with design characteristics.
32
33 DRB:
34 • A freestanding monument sign that works is the sign for Dentist Barrington's office.
35 • Other acceptable monument signs include Lambs Inn on North State Street and the one
36 for the Armed Forces building, medical marijuana prescription place, and professional
37 medical office building monuments signs on E. Perkins Street.
38 • The monument signs for St. Mary's Church on S. Dora Street and S. Oak Street are nice.
39 • Important for the signs to match the architecture of the building.
40 • The Waterman accounting building has a nice monument sign.
41 • The Board cited other monument signs they like in the DZC area.
42 • Metal is an acceptable material for signs.
43
44 Staff: The maximum height of one story in the DZC is 14 feet and buildings are required to be at
45 least two stories. If the Board approves of a maximum 12-foot height for a monument sign in the
46 Perkins Street Corridor, the sign would not be as tall as the building since the building would be at
47 least 28 feet.
48
49 DRB:
50 • Does not necessarily agree a 14-foot monument sign for a one-tenant one-story building
51 is acceptable. The setback should be an element to factor in with regard to height
52 limitations for single tenant and multiple tenant story buildings.
53 • Per the Sign Ordinance, the maximum height for a sign cannot exceed the height of the
54 building so essentially a sign can only have as many tenants that fit on it to the height of
55 the building.
Design Review Board June 20, 2011
Page 4
1
2 Staff:
3 • The planning Commission typically asks for maximum height of 8 feet for a monument
4 sign in the AIP.
5 • The maximum height of buildings varies according to the zoning district.
6
7 There was discussion regarding the maximum height allowed for buildings, noting some districts
8 allow a 50-foot high building.
9
10 DRB: Utility poles can affect the height of signs in terms of visibility.
11
12 Staff recommends the DRB photograph signs they like and do not like for further discussion so
13 that the DRB can identify the characteristics that are preferred and not preferred and the districts
14 in which they should be allowed.
15
16 8. MATTERS FROM THE BOARD:
17
18 Vice Chair Hise supports formulating an annual design awards program for signage just as has
19 been established for the FIP program. This is a way for communities to get their signage
20 improved and also a way to recognize nicely designed, quality signs.
21
22 The DRB or public member could nominate a sign by creating community awareness about a
23 design award. The process could include a recommendation whereby the final decision could be
24 made though the DRB or the City Council. Could consider recommendations from Main Street,
25 Chamber of Commerce if the body reviewing the signs is objective.
26
27 Staff noted City Council is the decision maker for the FIP award and the DRB recommends the
28 projects. . It seems that the award for signage would follow the same protocol.
29
30 9. MATTERS FROM STAFF:
31
32 Associate Planner Faso:
33 • A FIP application has been received for improvements to a building located at 301 S.
34 Main Street.
35 • The DRB will be reviewing the project and asked the DRB how specific do the design
36 details need to be.
37 • The applicant has provided plans and details about the improvements. Staff would like
38 direction if the submittal documents meet the requirements so that this information can be
39 requested of the applicant prior to the meeting. .
40
41 DRB will need the following information from the applicant:
42 • An accurate profile of the crown molding and/or all moldings.
43 • Elevations that match the details (doors, windows, moldings, lighting, etc.) provided.
44 • Manufacturer's specifications/details for the architectural elements of the project.
45 • Information on the exterior materials (e.g. awning, finish type for the stucco, etc.).
46 • Applicant should be present when the DRB reviews the project to answer questions.
47
48 10. SET NEXT MEETING/ADJOURNMENT: The next meeting will be August 4, 2011 at 3:00
49 p.m. The meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
50
51
52 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
Design Review Board June 20, 2011
Page 5