HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRBM_09012011 ��ty � u�iah City of Ukiah, CA
Design Review Board
1 MINUTES
2
3 Regular Meeting September 1, 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, 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: Don Alameida
16 Kathy James
17 Beatriz Arkin
18 Lois Nash
19 Debbie Ornales
20
21 3. CORRESPONDENCE: None
22
23 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: - The minutes from the August 4, 2011 meeting are deferred
24 to the next regular meeting.
25
26 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS: None.
27
28 6. RIGHT TO APPEAL: There are no appealable items.
29
30 7. NEW BUSINESS— PUBLIC HEARING 3:10 p.m. —4:00 p.m.
31 7A. Site Development Permit File No. 11-09-SDP-PC. Conduct a public hearing and make
32 Recommendations to the Planning Commission on the design and landscaping for
33 proposed new building to be constructed at 511 Orchard Avenue, APN 002-340-45.
34
35 Staff:
36 • Requests the DRB review and make recommendations to the Planning Commission
37 regarding Site Development Permit application file no 11-09 SDP-PC.
38 • The project is located outside of the Downtown Design District so the review of the
39 project today is voluntary.
40 • Referred to attachment 1 regarding the checklist for determining project consistency with
41 the Commercial Development Design Guidelines and staff is asking the DRB to comment
42 primarily on the building materials, the building, use of awnings, shading features/sun
43 exposure, and pedestrian orientation on the lot.
44 • It is necessary for staff to know if the DRB agrees with the applicanYs comments for the
45 different design guidelines.
46 • The Planning Commission is concerned that projects are designed with a high degree of
47 energy conservation in mind such as are the eves of sufficient height, are the awnings
48 adequately extended, is the building properly oriented where the project can take
49 advantage of passive solar opportunities, are the trees planted appropriately to provide
50 shade relief and other design features that address energy conservation.
51
Design Review Board September 1, 2011
Page 1
1 The applicant and corresponding representatives, DRB members and City Staff introduced
2 themselves.
3
4 Don Alameida, Project Architect:
5 • Talked about the site and commented on the other commercial buildings in the
6 neighborhood.
7 • The proposed 13,800 sq.ft. development will be able to accommodate the majority of the
8 District's need with the exception of the IT department, which may relocate to the existing
9 facility. The intent was to design a nice looking building that is affordable. The Board of
10 Trustees desired to have some sense of a having a traditional building with roof slopes.
11 • The project can accommodate 46 parking spaces.
12 • The ground floor footprint will include a UUSD meeting and teacher training room,
13 human resources, business services, personnel commission rooms and conference
14 rooms.
15 • The second floor footprint will include the superintendant's office and `Ed' services that
16 provide many types of education-related assistance.
17 • The building orientation was chosen to comply with planning standards in terms of
18 setbacks and other development standards without having to request a variance or any
19 other deviation.
20 • The intent was to construct an architecturally pleasing building that everyone can
21 appreciate and be proud of.
22 • The entryway to the building was created to make it inviting to different modes of
23 transportation.
24 • There will be an access entry from the parking lot.
25 • Is of the opinion that providing access to the building from the street is also important so
26 there is a `real presence'from the street.
27 • Explained the proposed location for bicycle parking on the site for employees or other
28 persons that would bicycle to the facility.
29 • Landscaping and/or one tree for every four parking space to comply with the UMC
30 parking requirements.
31 • Landscaping will be provided in the front setback area, outer perimeter areas and where
32 feasible on the site.
33 • The materials envisioned are predominately cement plaster. The access way and front of
34 the building will be a stone veneer and advised of the color and size. The
35 design/size/application of the stone will have that masonry look.
36 • The windows will be a commercial aluminum grade, dual glaze, low E2 glass. All
37 windows on the south and east sides and a majority of the west side will be shaded for
38 energy conservation purposes. The upper story will have a shading device over the
39 windows and the lower story will feature a wood trellis having vegetative vines and in
40 addition to providing shade will help soften the front mass of the building and allow for
41 more privacy for those offices on the lower floor.
42 • The building was designed to be as sustainable as costs would allow.
43 • To help break up the mass, the building has portions that are designed differently with
44 varying rooflines/pitches and demonstrated how this occurs on the site plans as opposed
45 to a conventionally designed commercial building having single-ply roofing material. Cool
46 roofing shingles and/or`Green' roofing materials will be used.
47 • The eves will be tapered and the fascia will be aluminum or zinc. While copper is
48 aesthetically pleasing, it is costly.
49 • The pitched roofs will have exposed rafter tails and the flat roof will have an overhang
50 with an aluminum fascia. These features help to break up the mass of the building.
51 • City sidewalks are existing. Would like to provide pedestrian friendly walkways on the site
52 where feasible either of stamped concrete or some other material. Also, provide for
53 stamped concrete pathways to distinguish handicap areas.
54 • Will provide for landscaping to include street trees.
55 • Has been working with a professional landscaping consultant regarding the project.
Design Review Board September 1, 2011
Page 2
1 • Will provide for additional solar panels, if feasible and if space is available.
2 • Explained where the transformer would be located.
3
4 Member Thayer provided written comments as follows:
5 1. Can it be recommended that a qualified, hopefully local, landscape professional be
6 consulted as to species selection and placement.
7 2. Numerous species are way too close together.
8 3. Numerous species are incorrectly spelled.
9 4. Numerous species are incorrectly placed on the site.
10 5. "Mulch" is not an acceptable groundcover along the frontage of the property.
11 6. In general, a positive `you can do better' approach with the applicant.
12
13 Chair Hise emphasized the importance the applicant review member Thayer's comments relative
14 to landscaping issues for the project.
15
16 DRB Questions:
17 Q1. Has energy conservation/usage been reviewed by a consultant?
18 Q2. Are the office windows operable?
19 Q3. The roof shingles would be of a lighter color in keeping with a 'Cool roof?'
20 Q4. Asked about the quality of the stone; Does the stone extend up the tower?
21 Q5. Asked about the fascia regarding the exposed rafters?
22 Q6. What is the color of the stucco?
23 Q7. Has permeable paving been a consideration?
24 Q8. While aluminum windows last and are appropriate for a commercial building, but will they
25 have a thermo break?
26 Q9. What are dimensions of the extended beams that come out from the eves?
27 Q10. Will the plans be reviewed by 'DSA' as the permitting agency or will you, the architect,
28 deal with the current`UVC?'
29 Q11. Asked about the mechanical screens and whether they will be open to the sky? Why the
30 need for the screens?
31 Q12. Asked about how the pattern of the stone and whether it would be vertically applied?
32 Q13. Requested clarification the windows will be aluminum and situated on the stone base;
33 the metal veneer will come down at the corners and all around the windows.
34 Q14. What is the color on the anodized aluminum trim around the window?
35 Q15. How far back will the stamped concrete be? Will some of the sidewalk extend out to the
36 parking area?
37
38 Don Alameida:
39 A1. Energy conservation in accordance with Title 24 is being reviewed. Explained how the
40 project will provide for energy conservation taking into consideration the stairwell.
41 A2. The office windows are operable. There are some windows that will not be operable such
42 as in the stairwell.
43 A3. The cool roof would be `Elk Shingle.' Colors for cool roofs vary. Shingles will be of a
44 brownish tone. The flat roof will also be a `cool roof.'
45 A4. The stone is of quality. The product name for the stone is `Real Stone' and is of a quartz
46 composition. The color is rather light to effectively blend with the color of the building. His
47 preference would be to use more of a darker brown/terra cotta color for the stone. The stone will
48 not extend the length of the tower, but will extend around the Board room. Above the stone
49 cladding will be an aluminum panel and explained how this work in conjunction with the glass
50 windows. The building will feature other treatments/accents to enhance the appearance and
51 provide aesthetically pleasing character.
52
53 Explained how the gutters fit on the fascia. The gutters will be shank mounted and will likely be of
54 zinc material and referred to the site plans concerning the portion of the building that will have a
55 shingle roof and 'half-round' rain gutters on the fascia with shank mounts.
56
Design Review Board September 1, 2011
Page 3
1 Will consider the use of natural wood of a quality grade underneath the eves for the pitched roof
2 that would coincide with the aluminum fascia and possibly wood to `play-off'the trellis.
3 A5. Explained how the exposed rafters fit into the design and more about the materials and
4 accent features that will be included on the building.
5 A6. Natural stucco with a `sandy' color appearance. The intent is to construct a building with
6 the colors, materials and design that would complement the neighborhood. At this point the
7 stucco color is somewhat darker than the stone. The intent is for the stone to be darker than
8 stucco.
9 A7. Is consulting with a licensed civil engineer whereby some portion of the parking lot will
10 have permeable paving in conjunction with a rock bed and explained how this would work. The
11 water table in the winter is about five feet below the surface.
12 A8. Yes, the windows will have a thermo break that does not transfer heat and cold/moisture
13 from one side of the glass to the other.
14 A9. Likely 3 ft. by 6 ft. that will tie into the frame work of the building.
15 A10. Will go by the California Building Code, which is what the City goes by.
16 A11. The wall to screen the HVAC on the rooftop will not be enclosed, but rather screened.
17 The wall will be stucco.
18 Al2. A vertical application deviates from how the stone is applied, but the manufacturer has
19 assured the applicant this can be done.
20 A13. The aluminum windows will be situated on the stone base; Although minimal, the metal
21 veneer will be used as infill in between the windows and will be the same color as the window
22 frames and/or an extension thereof.
23 A14. The anodized aluminum will be clear.
24 A15. Referred to the site plans and demonstrated the plans for the stamped concrete and
25 sidewalk.
26
27 Staff comments:
28 • The following issues are typically raised by the Planning Commission:
29 ■ Asked about the use of inetal panels and where they are being used? The Planning
30 Commission does not particularly like metal whereby the DRB is a little more mixed in
31 this regard.
32 ■ There may be an issue about the durability of wood versus metal with regard to the
33 trellis.
34 ■ There may be an issue regarding the lack of windows on the conference room. As
35 designed, these windows are high and does not provide for a very pedestrian-
36 oriented frontage.
37
38 Would like the DRB to comment on the aforementioned issues.
39
40 Don Alameida:
41 • Explained where metal is proposed to be used on the building. Metal will be used for the
42 soffit where the flat roof is located and the infill between the windows and the grills.
43 • Is looking into treated wood that can be used for the trellis. Prefers the trellis is wood.
44
45 There was discussion concerning examples of materials that can be used for the trellis in terms of
46 durability.
47
48 There was discussion about future use of the existing District building located on north State
49 Street. DRB is concerned about possibly having another abandoned building in the community.
50
51 DRB comments:
52 • Applicant has done a good job with the design and with breaking up the mass by adding
53 design articulations that do this effectively.
54 • Very important for any new building to provide for pedestrian and bicycle friendly
55 accommodations as part of the design elements.
Design Review Board September 1, 2011
Page 4
1 • While the application of wood on building can be beautiful is concerned that the rafter
2 tails on the building will deteriorate over time. Second growth lumber that is being used
3 today is not as durable as it used to be.
4 • Effectively coordinating the energy plan with mechanical engineers and mechanical
5 contractors appears to be amiss because there is a lot of wasted energy and money in
6 this regard.
7 • There are some elements about the proposed design that appear not to be `green'
8 compliant relative to permeable paving, the overhangs, and energy management and
9 other elements that will have to be review for compliance with the 2010 California Green
10 Building Code Standards.
11 • Regarding passive and active solar after review of California Green Code and completion
12 of the energy studies it is possible the windows will be upgraded to a higher performance
13 rather than Low E2.
14 • The trellis will work well, but it may very well be that something similar to this would be
15 nice for the second floor. While the sun shades fit the windows module, they do not fit the
16 sun that is making a streak across the sky. A trellis could lessen the energy consumption.
17 It may be the shades should be a foot wider that could save on energy costs. While costs
18 are a factor for the project, taking measures to less energy costs would be cost effective
19 in the long term.
20 • With regard to active solar, it would be prudent to have a consultant either a mechanical
21 engineer or consultant that just deals with solar to review solar installations and
22 calculations to look for ways to implement more solar collectors that would make the
23 building more independent.
24 • Member Thayer's comments have some good points.
25 • Supports allowing for more shade over windows, which is really nice in the summer.
26 • Having a well landscaped parking lot with hedges between cars can lessen the mass of a
27 parking lot. Recommends having higher hedges as a screening device between cars in
28 the parking lot.
29 • It may be Nick Thayer could offer some assistance about the landscaping for the project.
30 • Encourage the use of bicycles by putting racks in both the front and the back of the
31 building.
32 • The project is good.
33 • Likes: the color palate with the lighter colors, building footprint with the building upfront
34 and the parking lot in the rear and to the north, and the stone darker than the stucco.
35 • Building will enhance the neighborhood.
36 • Does not like the solar shells on the upper level.
37 • The entrance, lobby, and tower needs to be revisited. As designed this area would not be
38 able to accommodate a large number of persons should there be a meeting of
39 importance where more than 94 persons would be in attendance. The seating capacity
40 for the meeting room is 94. There would be no place for the overflow persons to sit and
41 there is no place either outside or inside to go out on a break. There is not enough
42 sidewalk or outdoor space or even space in the lobby on a rainy day to handle a lot of
43 people. The way the building is positioned traveling along Orchard Avenue especially
44 going south and with the entrance at the corner why not change the entrance and make
45 the corner look like and be the entrance and provide space just outside where people can
46 congregate. The current design does not provide enough rain protection. The entrance is
47 an excellent location for the public space. It is just that as it is now the entrance, inside
48 and outside lobby seem to be limited and not appropriate for the kinds of crowds that can
49 occur at a school board district office. The entrance can be extended and opened up by
50 wrapping it around the corner while still maintaining the tower element at the stair. There
51 will be shading to the lobby area from the trees that will be planted in this area
52 • Consider extending the overhangs three feet. This would architecturally complement the
53 style and character of the building and would provide shade to the second floor windows
54 in the summer time.
Design Review Board September 1, 2011
Page 5
1 • Consider the three-foot overhand and provide for one continuous overhang/roof to
2 accommodate added solar panels. As currently designed, the mechanical well for solar in
3 this location will not be sufficient to handle the energy demand for this building in the
4 future even as energy efficient as it is by today's building standards. As it is now, much of
5 the roofline has been lost with the `hips' placed on the roof for solar. With some
6 reconfiguration the pop-out articulation would be possible and still be able to increase the
7 capacity for solar. The pop-out articulation could work with a three-foot overhang.
8 Allowing for one continuous overhang would improve the look of the building and overall
9 function. It is a good design choice with the solar panels located on the south side of the
10 buildings. However, there are not a sufficient number of solar panels for the square
11 footage of the building even into the future. While the hips on the building are
12 aesthetically pleasing, a 'dutch gable' may be nice where the hips would protrude more
13 inwardly and the northeast access made longer by losing the pop-out articulation to
14 provide for additional solar panels.
15
16 Don Alameida:
17 • Noted the rafter tails will be exposed, but not extend beyond the gutters. The rafter tails
18 will not get direct rain.
19 • Coordinating an energy savings plan between mechanical engineers and contractors
20 can be problematic but for new construction buildings must conform to the 2010
21 California Green Building Code Standards.
22 • Will be reviewing the California Green Building Code Standards.
23 • Will consider a trellis on the second story or extending the shades. Cost is a factor for
24 this project.
25 • With regard to active solar, the intent is to have solar panels ready for installation later.
26 • Would like to know what landscaping species would be inappropriate so this can be
27 discussed with the landscape architect. Is of the opinion he has one of the best
28 landscaping consultants in the County.
29 • Is amenable to looking at encouraging the use of bicycles. Racks would have to be
30 worked around the landscaping.
31 • Addressed the mechanical wells for solar as shown on the site plans and indicated with
32 the shorter rafters there may be room for more solar panels.
33
34 Staff: Appears the DRB is fine with the way metal is being used on the building.
35
36 Chair Hise:
37 • The use of inetal is fine with a change to the tower design and re-work the glass
38 windows. In terms of design his issue is with the windows and not with the metal. The
39 design presents a good use of inetal because it is being used for accent purposes and
40 works more appropriately than wood would.
41
42 Staff:
43 • Appears the Board is fine with wood being used for the trellis provided the wood is of
44 quality and the dimensions are a good fit.
45
46 Chair Hise: The Board would have likely questioned this use more if the project was a FIP. Wood
47 is appropriate provided the applicant is comfortable with the quality and the type of vine species
48 selected. The vine species should not deteriorate the wood requiring a lot of maintenance.
49 Maintenance for a school board could be an issue.
50
51 There was discussion about the effectiveness of landscaping and balancing this aspect with the
52 trellis and the possible need to bring down the height of windows to provide that
53 balance/continuity in keeping with a stark wall. However, the windows cannot be lower than the
54 landings for the stairs.
55
Design Review Board September 1, 2011
Page 6
1 Staff: Does the Board agree that to keep the stark wall it must be offset by a more transparent
2 entry.
3
4 Board: A more transparent entry would be appropriate with maintaining a stark wall. Alternatively,
5 this is an opportunity for some sort of a `green screen' and/or wall to soften the mass and make
6 the presentation more pedestrian friendly. This would also cool the building. The green screen
7 would be placed away from the wall so it would not be such a maintenance issue. Having more of
8 pedestrian cover and entry would make the building function better.
9
10 There was discussion about providing more bicycle parking by possibly eliminating one parking
11 space.
12
13 Staff: It may be the UMC would allow the applicant to lose one parking space in lieu of bicycle
14 parking and provide for an outdoor seating area. The Planning Commission would support
15 providing outdoor space by losing a parking space. Staff will review the Code in this regard.
16
17 Don Alameida: Will review access for the project.
18
19 Lois Nash is pleased with the review and the DRB's comments/suggestions.
20
21 UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
22 8A. Downtown Zoning Code Design Guidelines. Continue working on development of
23 Downtown Zoning Code (DZC) Design District Guidelines, including incorporating the
24 Downtown Design District Guidelines for Signs and Materials into the DZC Guidelines.
25
26 Discussion of this item was deferred.
27
28 9. MATTERS FROM THE BOARD
29 None.
30
31 10. MATTERS FROM STAFF
32 None.
33
34 11. SET NEXT MEETING/ADJOURNMENT
35 The next meeting will be October 13 at 3:00 p.m. The meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
36
37
38 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
39
Design Review Board September 1, 2011
Page 7