HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRBM_09132012 ��ty � u�iah City of Ukiah, CA
Design Review Board
1 MINUTES
2
3 Regular Meeting September 13, 2012
4
5 Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue
6 1. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Hise called the Design Review Board meeting to order at 3:00
7 p.m.
8
9 2. ROLL CALL Present: Tom Liden, Alan Nicholson, Howie Hawkes,
10 Tim Hise, Chair
11 Absent: Nick Thayer
12 Staff Present: Kim Jordan, Senior Planner
13 Jennifer Faso, Associate Planner
14 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
15 Others present: Richard Ruff
16 Martin Breue
17
18 3. CORRESPONDENCE: None
19
20 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: - None
21
22 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS: None.
23
24 6. NEW BUSINESS:
25 6B. Election of Chairperson and Vice Chairperson
26
27 M/S Liden/Nicholson to nominate and elect Member Hise as Chairperson. Motion carried (4-0)
28 with Member Thayer absent.
29 M/S Nicholson/Hise to nominate and elect Member Liden as Vice Chairperson. Motion carried
30 (4-0)with Member Thayer absent.
31
32 6A. Site Development Permit File No. 12-13-SDP-UP-VAR-PC. Conduct a public hearing
33 and make recommendations to the Planning Commission on the design for the proposed
34 new mixed use project at 528 N. State Street, APN 002-146-11.
35
36 Martin Breue, Ruff�Associates gave a project description:
37 • The commercial use component will feature two commercial spaces that could be used
38 for office or retail, such as a small shop.
39 • The residential use component will feature 5 single room occupancy units (SROs) and 7
40 one bed-room units.
41 • Since the units are relatively small in size, storage units will be provided in the rear of the
42 site. There will also be laundry facilities.
43 • Parking would be provided in an open parking lot for seven vehicles located in the center
44 of the site and in carports located behind the commercial spaces that front North State
45 Street. There will be a total of 12 parking spaces. One parking space would be handicap.
46 • Six bicycle parking spaces are also proposed.
47 • The roof will feature space for photovoltaic systems. The intent is to utilize as much
48 natural energy as possible.
49 • The project will meet the City's 20% landscaping coverage requirement. The landscaping
50 will be located to the rear of the site around the residential buildings, including an urban
51 garden area.
Design Review Board September 13, 2012
Page 1
1 • The project design and building would be guided by Green Building standards. Energy
2 efficiency standards will be applied. Very close to getting a net-zero energy building.
3 • Rain water will be stored on-site to irrigate the urban garden.
4 • The material for the rear building on the first floor will be hardy panel.
5 • Referred to the site plans and explained the intent of the color scheme selected for the
6 buildings was to provide for a nice blend of colors that complement and enhance one
7 another yet distinguishes the commercial use from the residential.
8
9 Richard Ruff, Ruff&Associates, project architect:
10 • Commented on the site constraints and noted there are many `utilities' in the sidewalk
11 because of the traffic signals in the T-intersection of North State Street and Norton Street.
12 Because there are many utility structures in the area and on the site, it is likely only one
13 street tree can be planted as opposed to two trees.
14 • The traffic study conducted for the project pointed out that$50,000 worth of work must be
15 done to create an actual intersection so that pedestrians have a walk sign when they
16 cross the driveway of the site.
17 • Provided a visual sample of what the `green wall'will look like.
18
19 Senior Planner Jordan:
20 • SRO units are not allowed by City code in the city limits, but the DZC does have
21 provisions for SRO units (Attachment 4). The Planning Director made a Determination of
22 Appropriate Use to allow SROs for this particular project and the timeframe for appeal
23 has now passed.
24
25 DRB questions:
26
27 DRB: Clarification the storage units must be five feet from the rear property line.
28 Staff: The proposed site is zoned C-1 (Community Commercial) and located adjacent to R1
29 zoning to the rear of the site. In R1 the required rear and side setback for a detached structure is
30 five feet, so the rear setback for this project is 5 feet. The plans are proposing a three-foot
31 setback, so a minor variance is required.
32
33 DRB: Will the units be all electrical or will there be gas too?
34 Richard Ruff: There is no gas on the site. The solar panels on the roof should significantly
35 reduce energy bills.
36
37 DRB: Are the solar panels a part of the project or are they intended for the future as a Phase II? It
38 appears the building will be well insulated so it would not take too much power to heat them. Is
39 the installation of the solar panels a budget decision?
40 Richard Ruff: Is relatively sure they will be a Part I of the project. Confirmed the solar panels
41 would be budget decision. If the panels are not installed for Part I of the project, they would be
42 later. The panels would be a `grid tie' system.
43
44 DRB: With the building orientation will there be any passive heat?
45 Richard Ruff: There will be some solar gain.
46
47 DRB: What is the roofing material?
48 Richard Ruff: The plan is for the roofing material to be metal.
49
50 DRB: Will the bottom portion of the buildings actually be orange as shown on the drawings?
51 Richard Ruff: The computer does not actually portray the true color, which would be more of a
52 maroon.
53
54 DRB: Asked about plans for rain water storage and re-use? Consider if the underground tank
55 makes economic or physical sense to store that much water.
Design Review Board September 13, 2012
Page 2
1 Richard Ruff: There will be an underground tank to store rain water for irrigation purposes. It is
2 likely the only water that will be collected would be off the two sloped roofs.
3
4 DRB: What are the plans for the commercial space?
5 Richard Ruff: It is just one open space with an ADA compliant restroom. The windows are
6 proportioned and surrounded by a `green wall' as shown on the plans. The commercial space will
7 likely be for office use.
8
9 DRB: Where is the crosswalk located?
10 Richard Ruff: There is a crosswalk on the north and south sides of the site, including striping in
11 the parking lot of the site for pedestrian use. Demonstrated the location of the proposed new
12 driveway and noted the old one has been abandoned and is now a sidewalk.
13
14 DRB: Is it possible to provide for a privacy gate to the complex?
15 Richard Ruff: It is not possible because of the traffic backing up into the intersection.
16
17 Staff: The City Public Works Department is asking for a drainage study. The Building Official and
18 Public Works Department will review the Project for ADA compliance.
19
20 DRB comments:
21
22 Member Nicholson: Read and provided a list of comments/questions that are incorporated into
23 the minutes by reference as attachment 1.
24
25 Staff:
26 • While street trees are not shown on the plans, two are required.
27 • There are several landscaping requirements for parking lots that do not apply to this
28 project. These requirements apply to parking lots of 12 or more spaces. This project has
29 a parking lot for 7 vehicles. The remaining parking spaces are located in carports rather
30 than an "open parking lot."
31
32 Units:
33
34 DRB: Is fine with the unit size.
35
36 Chair Hise: There needs to be more room on the site. Does not see a need for the storage units.
37
38 Richard Ruff:
39 • The storage units cannot be eliminated for the project because this is a necessary
40 component to the project. The storage units are single story. There are 10 storage units
41 that would be metal with a flat roof.
42 • The project is hanging by a `thin thread' in terms of making it work financially. It is about
43 1.4 million dollar project. The utility costs are approximately$183,000 and other City fees
44 are about $36,000 leaving approximately $839,000 for the buildings/rest of project
45 amenities. The rents for the different units range from $475 to $900. In order to make
46 the project work, everything that is proposed must remain.
47
48 Staff:
49 • The storage units are a requirement for the SROs.
50 • SROs are consistent with the recent General Plan Housing Element. The Project would
51 provide a housing type that would be affordable for a specific segment of this community
52 and in a location where many services are provided.
53
54 Site Lavout, Parkinq, and Pedestrian Access
55
56 Chair Hise:
Design Review Board September 13, 2012
Page 3
1 • The public crosswalks are not shown on the grading, site, or landscaping plan. These
2 should be included as part of the plans so that the pedestrian facilities can be
3 understood.
4 • Too much being proposed for the site, particularly with the landscaping for the parking lot.
5 • The parking, as proposed, has too many issues. The location of the planters in the
6 parking lot makes several spaces unusable. In order for the parking spaces to be usable,
7 these planters need to be removed.
8 • Looking at Sheet A1.1, the four trees would have to be removed to allow for larger
9 parking spaces. The end parking spaces are the most difficult, need to be at least 9 feet
10 wide. The person would have to back out straight and there is little room to do this. The
11 carports also likely need to be wider than proposed in order to be usable.
12 • Reconsider the location of the handicap space. There is no clear path of travel from the
13 loading zone to the entrance of the buildings without crossing behind other cars which is
14 not allowed.
15 • Backup space for the parking lot is 25 feet. Any less backup space would not work,
16 especially for the end parking spaces.
17 • Is concerned about the entrance to the residential units above the commercial space
18 which forces people to walk close to the driveway with very minimal sidewalk width and
19 space for an entrance to a unit. As designed, there is a danger as of a pedestrian/car
20 interface that could be corrected. The 3-foot 8-inch sidewalk does not work for providing
21 an entry to the building since the entry door is flush with the sidewalk. Consider widening
22 the sidewalk to 4 feet and recessing the entry door to the units.
23 • A laundry area would likely work. Cautioned there are setback issues all the way around
24 the site. By eliminating the storage units, the parking area could be re-worked.
25 • Agrees with many of Member Nicholson's comments (see Member Nicholson's
26 comments included as attachment 1 of these minutes).
27 • The plans do not indicate the doorway is recessed and shows the doors right on the
28 sidewalk.
29
30 Member Liden: Understands the site has many constraints in addition to the fact it is a small lot.
31
32 Richard Ruff:
33 • Difficult to re-work the parking area since the building cannot be moved closer to the rear
34 property line.
35 • The doorway to the units above the commercial space is recessed.
36 • Will make the handicap parking work.
37 • Only one handicap space is required and the reason it is placed as it is on the site is to
38 keep cars away. It also provides a place for loading and unloading of persons.
39 • One solution would be to provide a pathway. This would help make the handicap parking
40 work.
41 • The City Public Works Department insists the project driveway line up with Norton Street
42 to create a true intersection and this is the reason there are only two small areas possible
43 for street trees on either side of the driveway.
44 • It is possible to provide for a narrowing driveway and use traffic calming measures to
45 slow down people.
46 • The City Fire Department indicated there would not be problem turning the fire trucks
47 around on the site with the 25-foot wide strip that a fire truck can turn around in and come
48 back out.
49
50 DRB:
51 • Likes the courtyard, central entry.
52 • One problem with the parking layout is once a person enters the lot, there may not be a
53 space available. Turning around to exit would be difficult. However, it is likely the
54 handicap space would be available for someone to use to turn around.
Design Review Board September 13, 2012
Page 4
1 • Sidewalks next to the commercial space at the side of the buildings are too narrow.
2 Should consider widening them and recess the entries to the units above to ensure
3 adequate space and reduce conflicts. Recommend the sidewalk be at least 4 feet wide.
4 • Need 25 feet to provide adequate backup distance in the parking lot.
5 • As it is now, people have to walk around the rear of the cars when leaving the accessible
6 parking space which is not allowed. Reconsider the location of the handicap space.
7 • Need to accurately show the elevations/grades for the site on the plans to understand
8 the drainage and whether or not the project provides the required ADA access and
9 facilities.
10
11 Desiqn and Materials:
12
13 Member Hise: Understands that the owner needs to have a certain amount of rental income to
14 make the project work so providing for a full two-story living room would not be economically
15 feasible.
16
17 Member Nicholson: The conceptual design has no relationship between the front and rear
18 buildings or with the adjacent built environment along the street.
19
20 Member Hawkes: Understands while the intent of the design mix was to distinguish residential
21 from commercial the hardy panel used on the bottom of two buildings provides for a design
22 connection. Is okay with the design and different designs for the front and rear buildings.
23
24 Staff: One of the concerns from all the comments regarding the DZC is that square or horizontal
25 window orientations do not `read' commercial especially on State Street. The windows for the
26 commercial space appear to have a square orientation.
27
28 Richard Ruff:
29 • The intent with multiple style buildings is to differentiate the residential from the
30 commercial. Also, the style blends in well with the Coffee Critic design and color scheme.
31 • The upper units have lofts. It would not be possible to extend the height of the roof to
32 allow for more living space.
33 • The concern with large glass windows for the commercial buildings is safety, particularly
34 with skateboarders operating in the area of the site. So, the window was raised.
35 • Would like to maintain a window for the front because it is nice to have a window to look
36 out from.
37
38 DRB Comments:
39 • Two members have indicated the preference would be to have a single design as
40 opposed to what is proposed for the buildings.
41 • One advantage with more than building style and color is that it gives the site more depth
42 and provides for some variation.
43 • One selling factor would be to create a loft situation in the back as opposed to a
44 mezzanine or allow for a full two-story living room.
45 • Is fine with the green wall.
46 • Is generally fine with the color scheme for the front and rear units.
47 • Likes the SRO unit concept.
48 • Site may be"too full."
49 • The commercial units on the ground floor do not have a `commercial' appearance. The
50 window in the commercial space does not create a `storefronY look. It is a residential
51 window. Options for a more commercial appearance would be a single door with no
52 window since wall space may be at a premium in these tenant spaces, have a door with
53 sidelight, create a more vertical window orientation, eliminate the window and provide
54 more"green wall."
Design Review Board September 13, 2012
Page 5
1 • The materials and project details need to be noted on the plans and better described.
2 This information needs to be provided for Planning Commission.
3
4 Landscapinq
5
6 Member Hise: Modesto Ash is not a good street tree for Ukiah's climate.
7
8 Staff:
9 • While street trees are not shown on the plans, they are required.
10 • Street trees are required for the Project. Public Works determines the number of street
11 trees required —requirement one for every 30 feet. The exact location of the trees can be
12 adjusted by Public Works based on site constraints.
13 • Modesto Ash is not on the City's Master Tree list.
14 • The parking requirements are associated with 12 spaces. In this case, there are seven
15 parking spaces in a parking lot and the carports. Carports are not parking lots. So the rule
16 about if there are 12 parking spaces a project must provide for shading and one parking
17 lot tree every 4 spaces does not apply.
18
19 Siqnaqe
20
21 DRB: Provide a signage plan for Planning Commission review.
22
23 Liqhtina
24
25 DRB: Provide for a lighting plan and make certain there are no light impacts to neighboring
26 properties.
27
28 7. MATTERS FROM THE BOARD
29 Staff advised the Design Review Board is now a City function as opposed to an RDA function
30 where the purview is now citywide as opposed to only within certain boundaries. Accordingly, the
31 DRB's function is to look at all sight Development Permits and all Planned Development
32 applications, including a Precise Development Plan for PD projects.
33
34 Chair Hise recommends the City formulate a conflict of interest policy and elaborated on how this
35 would work.
36
37 There was discussion about various forms that relate to Projects reviewed by the DRB, such as
38 the Downtown Design Guidelines, Planning Permit Application form that identifies the minimal
39 submittal requirements for projects.
40
41 8. MATTERS FROM STAFF
42 None.
43
44 9. SET NEXT MEETING/ADJOURNMENT
45 The next meeting will be Thursday, October 11, 2012. The meeting adjourned at 4:46
46 p.m.
47
48
49 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
50
Design Review Board September 13, 2012
Page 6
, �ff��f�trs�n�# 1
�
_ ---�
' 528 N.Stafie Sfi.,
IVlized llse Proposal
Pra'ect Comrna from Afan Nicholson,September'f3,2U't2
Pra�sed Unf#s
1, lt is st�fetl in the oover laii�r ihat the prajact dasign wil!be gui�ed by ths(Cahfamia 2010,T�I�24,
Parf 2}Green Building Standards{GBS).In addltlon to the Catifomia BuiPding Code(C9C)it is a
requirement to meet tha Mandatory Measures af ihe GBS.It is noE s�ted whether#he applir,�nt will
incorporate the G8C Residential Voluntary Measures,orfallow the U5 Green Building Standards.
2. IL�s nat�lear how the building wiEl achieve a Net Pero Energy Buikiing,aside€ram hopa.
3. Yhe Znning allows 7 Units based on parcal square Eooiage.The propasal is for 12 Units.The 7 one
bedroom apartmenffi are te�hnicalfy but barely aver ihe maximum sf.for a SRO{400 sf.)and create
an exheme derrsi€y ratip for the paroel.
4. Reparding the rear unit first flaor SRO and adjacent common area;oEher�an to cram more rantsyEe
spaoe into�e property,why an{SRO}unit is»eeded when an ample 492 sQ.#t single bedroorr�
aparUr�nt wuld be bailt in the same spaoe.!t is assurned that more income could 6e generaied
from a 1 bedroam apartrnent rather than a 5ft0,however the zoning wil!not aliow ano�tEi 1$R�nif.
5. Who would mainfain f�e cammon area7
6. If eppears tha rear s6orage unif does rrot meet the required 5 ft.setbadc per zoning requirement on
#he north side and perhaps the sotfth side also.
Stree#Faqede
1. 7he massing oP tha two str�e#fran;bu3lding provides cerrtral aocess gatewey end e courtyard eFFect
#ar the rear 6uilding providing a sanse of privacy and identityr Lpr�e interior oflhe si6e.However#he
conc�pfua�desigtt has no relatianship 6etween fhe Fronf and rear buiidings,or with fha ad�aCent built
ernironment slong the street.
2. What bcation and witiat kind of commercial slgnage are proposed?
Color
1. Acoording to t3�e acoepted 6�ign Review 6oard guid�fines pub[ished 6y the City of Ukiah;fhe use
of e�arior coiors should reEate ta ihe natural building materials in the area and be cnmpaUble,
without beirEg idantica�to surraunding prC�erties.CoEor seledion fnr ahe purpose of individual
statement at fhe sacriFce af fhe campatibility of the surrou�ding area,and fhe use of more than ohe
vivid rx3Evr pubuilding is d4scourageci.
2. Neither building cvlor nor a r.amplebe list of materials are called oui on the received plans,however
in compasiEior�,the front buildings have li�le Jn common with ihe ne�ghborhaod or the rear buiidings,
and presenf a raEher discofdanf and jamng appearance in relafian ta each other.ff the rear buflding
is planned#ar future PV collectors,then one would assume the front uniYs wauld also integrate a
simllar furoctlon,or at least a compatible and harmonic deslgn vocabWary would fse the two together.
This is parficu[arly evic[ent in the application of 1he oolor panel Gadding wlth Yhe early modernist,
ldlandrian inspired proportioning composition in frant and ihe indusVial arts and cratEs design lir�eage
implieci in d'ie rear.Either one could be dramatic and benefii the neigh6orhood if dane woell.
La�eiscapipg
4. The 20%landscapin�rule pro�ides fior a aat�scape Yhat is irrigated and maintained by the awner.
A[ihough the idea of Individual raised tieds for Eood crops is admireble,there is no assurance fhat
fhe residents will keep fhe raised beds in productipn,ar aciively msintain any landscape feature,
2. There are no street trees prRppsed;is t�tere a City guideline for sidewalk landscapirtg in this ar�a?
3. If the area between the stoiage unft and ihe property lina is 5'ihen are the plant materials ,
appropriafe,and will t�ey be maintained in sur,�a long and narrow space?
1
Design Review Board September 13, 2012
Page 7
Parking
1. The parking propvsa!of S spaces at 8 k.wide by 15 ft.long is for compact cars only and 3s extrefnely
tight for a small car Ea use and in practice,impossible to use with a full size SUV or truck if a door
must be opened.'fhis leaves 3 spates for 7 vne bedroom apartments,as ihe ADA stall may only be
�s�far State apprav�tl ADA parking.
2. 7�e bul�out planter in the parking egress may interiere with movement of cars to and irom parking
spaces.
3. Are these plan6ers supposed to provide Ehe iandscape requirement for 1 tree for every�4 spaoes7 As
Ehere does not appear to be the required planling ior�overed parking.
ADA eompliance
1. Daes tRe naw sidewaik and driveway oomply with current ADA pafh of travel requirements?
Proiect Statisties
Parcel: 11,908 sf.
Landsqpe Required 2p°6: 2,381 sf. Na sq.ft,on proposal
Zaning Ailowance: 7 Units; 10 Residential proposed,2 Commercial(12 ilnits
prop�ed)
Total building square feet: (no total provided)
3 hvo story bfdgs.
Rear 8uilding:
Fsrst Floor
3 ea.1$R appt.{A): 4D3 sf.
t ea.SRO,1st fl.: 212 sf.
i Common area: 200 sf.
S�cond Floor
2 ea.1 BR appf.(B): 436 sf.+SD sf.
2 ea.1 BR appE.(C) 438 sf.+BO sf.
Front Two 8uildings:
2 commerual at ground 293&198 sf.
2 SRO on ea.2nd floor 220,280,300,32D s#.
Sforage&Laundry Bldg. 475 sq.ft.
10 ea.5torage 40 sf.
1 ea.Laundry 74 sf.
Parfcing 12 Total
Front: 8 spates at B'x 16'
Rear: 4 spaces at 9'x 18'
Incl,1 Van Accessible ADA
1 Bicycle pkg.area
1
Design Review Board September 13, 2012
Page 8