Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRBM_02142013 City of Ukiah, CA Design Review Board Design Review Board February 14, 2013 Page 1 MINUTES 1 2 Regular Meeting February 14, 2013 3 4 Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue 5 1. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Hise called the Design Review Board meeting to order at 3:00 6 p.m. 7 8 2. ROLL CALL Present: Tom Liden, Howie Hawkes, 9 Tom Hise, Chair 10 Absent: Alan Nicholson, Nick Thayer 11 Staff Present: Kim Jordan, Senior Planner 12 Jennifer Faso, Associate Planner 13 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary 14 Others present: Charles Ackerley 15 Deborah Ganz 16 Freedom Smith 17 18 3. CORRESPONDENCE: None 19 20 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: - December 8, 2011 & October 11, 2012 21 M/S Liden/Hawkes to approve the December 8, 2011 and October 11, 2012 minutes, as 22 submitted. Motion carried (3-0) with Members Nicholson and Thayer absent. 23 24 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS 25 26 6. NEW BUSINESS: 27 6A. Preliminary Review Ukiah Valley Medical Center – Hospital Support Building (File 28 No. 13-03-PRE-DRB) Design review pre-application review of new a Hospital Support 29 Building. 275 Hospital Drive, APN 002-160-08. 30 31 Senior Planner Jordan: 32  Gave a staff report and noted the Support building is a standalone application. The DRB 33 is being asked to make design comments concerning this project. 34  Provided the DRB with a copy of project comments from Member Nicholson. These 35 comments will be incorporated into the minutes as attachment 1. 36  Introduced Charles Ackerley, Jennings Ackerley Architecture and Design. 37 38 Deborah Ganz, Adventist Health: While the Hospital Expansion Project has been approved by 39 the Planning Commission, the hospital is reevaluating the campus for ways to improve and 40 provide for a more uniform/cohesive layout such that the design/color pallete/materials/treatments 41 are well coordinated so the presentation of the buildings/other structures/landscaping provide for 42 a more welcoming/patient/pedestrian friendly environment. 43 44 The Support building is not an OSPD project. 45 46 Charles Ackerley, Architect: referred to the site plan for the proposed new Support building: 47  The Support building is currently being designed. While there is no formal design at this 48 point, is asking the DRB for comments related only to the Support Building that would be 49 located in the rear of the hospital campus. The intent is to improve the functionality and 50 aesthetics of the other buildings/structures/existing roadway in the same location. 51 Design Review Board February 14, 2013 Page 2  Acknowledged the hospital is also reevaluating the campus layout and/or master plan as 1 to how the hospital functions and is exploring options to make for a more 2 balanced/harmonious/better functioning/attractive and more engaging environment for 3 hospital patients and their families, visitors and hospital staff. 4  Likes having a primary service entrance, designated parking areas and connected 5 pedestrian/public corridors from building to building that help unify and more clearly 6 define the campus and the various functions as opposed to a somewhat hodge-podge 7 design layout. 8  Is of the opinion the hospital complex has more of factory/industrial look. There is a need 9 to make the hospital campus cohesive in a way that the buildings and connections to the 10 buildings, parking area, entrance, and landscaping are more clearly defined, accessible, 11 inviting and friendly. Consideration will be given to overall circulation on the site as it 12 relates to parking and access that may include possible infrastructure improvements. 13  Preservation of patient privacy and providing comfort are examples of highly important 14 components to consider that can be accomplished with appropriate landscaping and 15 nicely designed buildings with treatments that can provide privacy and comfort. 16  UVMC would like to have the new Support Building completed by the end of this year. 17  The Support Building is approximately 12,000 square feet and two-stories. 18  The new support building is not directly associated with patient care. 19  Commented on the functions of the buildings at the rear of the site which include 20 receiving, material/product storage, medical equipment storage, repair area and 21 linen/laundry and are essentially the ‘heartbeat’ of the hospital. These uses are currently 22 scattered throughout the rear of the site and could be more efficiently arranged to serve 23 the hospital. Many of these functions could be located in the Support Building. The rear 24 of the site also has containers, an emergency generator and a collage of other things. 25 The intent is to analyze these functions and m ake improvements as the hospital develops 26 and grows. 27  The proposed Storage building will feature office space on the second floor. 28  Understands the building would need to be reconfigured and moved forward because a 29 two-story building is not allowed in the B2 Airport Compatibility Zone without Mendocino 30 County Airport Land Use Commission review and approval. 31 32 Staff: Confirmed that a determination would have to be made by the Mendocino County Airport 33 Land Use Commission that a two-story is consistent with the B2 infill compatibility criteria. 34 35 DRB: 36  Questioned plans concerning the roadway that dead ends at the back of Home Depot 37 and finds this to be a very odd situation. 38  Asked if plans include opening up the corridor on the back side of the hospital facility to 39 accommodate trucks and other vehicles where the storage facilities/repair areas are 40 located. 41  Asked about the modular structures that were located near the physical therapy building. 42  There was discussion about the parking on the site, particularly plans concerning the 43 temporary/permanent parking lot on the northwest side of the campus. 44  Questioned if the DRB is being asked to look at the design concept for the Support 45 building whether attention is also to be directed as to how this fits into the grand scheme 46 of plans for the hospital campus. 47  Likes the concept of the Support building, but is really unable to comment on the design 48 aspects because there is no design being proposed at this time. 49  Rather than provide direction preference would like to understand the intent of the 50 project. 51 52 Staff: 53  It just happens to be that Hospital Drive ends at the back side of Home Depot. 54 Design Review Board February 14, 2013 Page 3  It may very well be the Support building is the beginning of the bigger picture for the 1 hospital campus and while consideration is being given to the overall design of the 2 campus there is only one application and this is for the Support building. 3  The “overflow” parking lot currently being used by the hospital would be replaced by the 4 permanent parking lot approved as part of the Hospital Expansion project. The overflow 5 parking lot is allowed to be used during construction of the approved Expansion Project 6 and would likely need to be used during construction of the Support Build ing for parking 7 and construction staging. When the permanent parking lot is built, the overflow lot can no 8 longer be used. 9  Requests the DRB provide direction to the applicant that can be used for the preparation 10 of the formal application. Design style that is preferred or not, site design concerns, etc. 11  Need to be clear that the applicant is not required to and provide a “Master Plan” of the 12 hospital campus as part of the Support Building Application. 13 14 Charles Ackerley: There is an access driveway from E. Perkins Street where the physical 15 therapy building is located that goes along the back side of hospital facility where the support 16 buildings are located. 17 18 Freedom Smith, Ukiah Valley Medical Center: The modular structures have been merged into 19 the job site. 20 21 DRB comments related to the design of the new Support building: 22  Agrees with Member Nicholson’s Project comments. 23  Project should be people centered. 24  Provide for outdoor space for employees and visitors. People should be able to have a 25 connection with the outdoors. The outdoor space could be covered. 26  Provide good landscaping. 27  Provide energy efficient components, possibly green-walls, address heat island effect of 28 west facing windows. 29  Provide for nice color pallete. 30  Do not mimic design of hospital/Birth Center. Design for the Support building would not 31 really be meaningful without full concept of the master plan for the hospital campus and 32 how the design of other buildings architecturally ties in with one another. 33  Recommend relocating the two-story part of the building to be outside of the B2 Airport 34 Compatibility Zone to avoid going to the Airport Land Use Commission. Going to the 35 ALUC is uncertain and would delay the project. 36  Focus on providing adequate pedestrian and bicycle access to all buildings and provide 37 adequate pedestrian circulation and bicycle parking. Bike and pedestrian issues are 38 important to our community. 39  Make certain the backside of the hospital has adequate pedestrian and bicycle access. 40  The generator facility is in an unsuitable location. 41  The backend of the campus is unorganized and needs to be improved. 42  Likes the design and welcoming feel of the ‘Pavilion’ building. 43  Does not need to see the master plan for the site as it relates to the architecture as part 44 of the formal application for the Support building. 45 46 Deborah Ganz: Emergency funding has been received to replace and possibly relocate the 47 emergency generator. 48 49 Charles Ackerley: Will provide colors and materials from the “master palette” for the hospital 50 campus for the formal application for the Support Building. This would be the “palette” that is 51 intended to be used throughout the hospital campus over time which will be based on a design 52 that fits with Ukiah and/or Mendocino County image and the fact that the Project is a hospital. A 53 “Master Plan” for development of the hospital campus will not be provided as part of the Support 54 Building application. 55 Design Review Board February 14, 2013 Page 4 7. MATTERS FROM THE BOARD: None 1 2 8. MATTERS FROM STAFF 3 8A. Outdoor Dining Structure Program for Downtown Ukiah. Request for Design Review 4 Board recommendations regarding design and materials for outdoor dining structures. 5 6 Shannon Riley, City Project and Program Analyst: 7  City Council authorized staff to develop an Outdoor Dining Structure Program for 8 Downtown Ukiah. 9  The Program is m odeled after the successful pilot project at Patrona and will extend to 10 eligible restaurants in the Downtown core. 11  Program guidelines are being developed. 12  Intent is to avoid ‘cookie-cutter’ appearance and allow for businesses to personalize their 13 outdoor dining structures as much as possible within the Program guidelines in 14 compliance with City safety and design standards/encroachment regulations, etc. 15  Would like DRB input regarding fencing, floor surface, furnishing standards 16 (tables/chair/umbrellas and umbrella stands/lighting/portable heaters/trash 17 receptacles/other decorative items). 18  Provided examples of outdoor dining structures used in San Francisco and Long Beach 19 and asked for the DRB to comment and make recommendations thereof (See attachment 20 2). Noted the difference between the Parklet in San Francisco and the program the City is 21 proposing is that the Parklets are truly public parks even though they are typically l ocated 22 near a restaurant and can be used by anyone. 23  Also provided are materials/product specifications from Bison (See attachments 3, 4 & 5). 24  The outdoor dining structures in Ukiah will basically be the property of the restaurant 25 which would be responsible for maintenance, providing insurance, and for compliance 26 with all City rules/regulations. 27  Asked the DRB to review the draft Program and make recommendation. 28  A number of city jurisdictions limit large tables in outdoor dining. (No bigger than a four -29 top) 30  With regard to the Parklet bottom right (see attachment 2), would think there would be 31 some kind of small barrier on the back of the wooden bar/table so food/dishes and the 32 like do not fall into the street. 33  Related to tables and chairs, plastic or resin chains are prohibited. Such chairs get ‘grimy’ 34 and are light weight so they tend to get blown around. Some cities suggest specific 35 materials for chairs, such as wrought iron, fabricated steel, etc. 36 37 DRB comments regarding Parklet examples from San Francisco and Long Beach 38 (attachment 2): 39  Questioned the design related to the outdoor dining example with the barrels. The design 40 appears to be ‘choppy.’ 41  Do not like the row 2, left side example (see attachment 2) which looks like a corral. 42  Likes the outdoor dining structure on the bottom left of the examples. The materials 43 appear to be ‘Bison’ and the design is pleasing/welcoming and less cluttered than some 44 of the other examples. Likes the use of landscaping in this example provides green space 45 and a barrier between the street and outdoor dining area. 46  The design and choice of materials/accessory décor relative to the outdoor dining 47 structure example bottom right is interesting. The barrier can act as a table and people 48 sitting on the stool seats can look at traffic while eating. The sidewalk extends outward, 49 the design is simplistic yet very appealing/inviting. 50  Outdoor dining structures should be level and supported as the floor transitions from 51 sidewalk to structure. Member Liden cited an example in Virginia where brick and sand 52 are used. The transition between the sidewalk and outdoor dining was nicely achieved 53 and highly pleasing aesthetically. 54 Design Review Board February 14, 2013 Page 5  Member Liden supports allowing florescent colors for umbrellas, rather than prohibiting 1 them. They can be used well. 2  Height of railing should be no more than 36 inches. 3  Presentation is important. 4  Structures should not appear or be cluttered for safety/privacy/aesthetic purposes. 5  Materials and surfaces used should have the ability to be power-washed. 6  Use of redwood for the floor of the structure is not a good idea because it can be slippery 7 in the winter. 8  Important to extend the sidewalk outward. 9  Provide for some type of railing system for outdoor dining structure. 10  Landscaping should be encouraged. Planters are okay and can be effective a 11 barrier/separation between the structure and the street. 12  Make sure there is some way to maintain underside of structures in order to remove 13 debris/garbage which can accumulate under decks and create unpleasant odors/smells. 14  Likes the brick and sand approach. There is an advantage to having a permeable 15 surface. Also, this would prevent debris from getting under the surface and creating 16 odors. 17  Likes the concept of having ‘patio-type surfaces.’ Could be brick, tile, or other types of 18 materials used for patios. 19  Structures should be ADA accessible and need to have a foundation. 20  Platform structures are okay provided they are level with the sidewalk with a smooth 21 transition from sidewalk to outdoor dining area. 22 23 There was discussion concerning surfacing using sand and the technique used. 24 25 Chair Hise: 26  Supports having guidelines with basic concepts because some people will want to do 27 more and others less. Some people may only want tables, others tables with planters, 28 and others may want a well-defined structure and take a more architectural approach. 29 Guidelines are necessary to steer way from ‘anything goes’ kind of design and to prevent 30 clutter. 31  Has seen patio work done with sand and square pavers that are very effective and 32 provides for a nice appearance. This technique is actually less costly than concrete. Is 33 familiar with mixing sand with cement and this too is an effective technique. 34  Wood decking and railing is expensive and is not typically durable. There a re 35 prefabricated materials available that are longer lasting. 36  With the right design, benches would be acceptable. Benches function great as boarders. 37  European Café themes are well-known for using small café tables. The reason large 38 tables are likely prohibited is to be able to seat a small number of people like European 39 café’s do. Restaurants that have a sideyard typically have larger tables for outdoor 40 dining. 41 42 DRB: While Patrona’s outdoor dining structure looks good, it is not level with the sidewalk. It is a 43 platform. 44 45 Member Liden: 46  Referencing Patron, one does not expect to have a ‘deck’ on an asphalt surface where 47 people park their cars. The structure is not level with the sidewalk. 48  Likes most of the design concepts in the examples of outdoor dining structures featured 49 in attachment 2. 50 51 DRB comments regarding Bison products and material brochure (attachments 3, 4 & 5) 52  Provides nice examples of patio surfacing. Sees that Bison provides prefabricated 53 concrete and stone surfacing materials of different design and character. 54 55 Design Review Board February 14, 2013 Page 6 DRB comments: 1  Likes the concept of outdoor dining. Patrona outdoor dining was a nice addition to the 2 Downtown. 3  Would like to see other outdoor dining establishments in the Downtown. 4  The design examples would be useful for the Program because the outdoor dining 5 structures need to be attractive. The examples of outdoor dining structures could act as 6 design guidelines that provide ideas and samples of materials that could be used. Do not 7 like the “corral” with trellising or the barrel with tree in attachment 2. Likes the idea of 8 trees and landscaping, but the barrel in the middle of the barrier/railing is odd. 9  Structure should provide for a happy medium between being able to relate to pedestrian 10 activity on the sidewalk and having the sense of being safe and separated from the street 11 because this represents the fun of eating on the sidewalk. 12  Inquired about how the Program would work and what would be the boundaries? Could 13 someone do an outdoor dining project on Perkins Street? 14  While the program should have guidelines and standards for compliance, creativity 15 should be encouraged. 16 17 Staff: 18  There would be a standard package that people can choose from. If someone wants to 19 do something different than the standard package, the DRB can review the project. 20  While neon colors would not likely be a good choice and hence prohibited, it could be 21 such colors would be appropriate for a project. The DRB would be able to make this 22 determination. 23  While the program boundaries have not been determined, they will likely be limited to the 24 Downtown core, primarily because unlike other areas this area does not already have 25 onsite areas to accommodate outdoor dining and can only use the sidewalk or other 26 right-of-way for this. 27  Perkins Street outside of the downtown would not be included in the Program 28 boundaries. 29 30 Chair Hise asked about the requirements for a barrier. 31 32 Staff: 33  The matter of barriers is being looked at as they relate to safety, ABC requirements 34 and/or other city/public right-of-way/encroachment requirements. 35  Does the DRB want to consider planters as fencing? 36 37 DRB: Encourage planters as fencing. 38 39 Floor Surface 40 Open to different techniques; Likes materials from Bison. Most effective if sidewalk is extended 41 and make certain all surfacing is level with the sidewalk. 42 43 Would like to see a variation in surfacing materials. Does not want to necessarily see all brick. 44 45 Furnishing Standards 46 47 Tables & Chairs 48  Are necessary provided they are maintained, safe for persons. Plastic chairs should be 49 allowed provided they have some architectural design where the plastic is mixed with 50 stainless steel and/or the like. 51  Metal tables and chairs look nice. Cautioned though some metal tables and chairs can 52 get too hot in the afternoon sun. Table cloths would be an option. 53 54 Design Review Board February 14, 2013 Page 7  Likes staff’s recommendations concerning materials permitted on page 2 of the staff 1 report. 2  Agrees all plastic or resin tables and chairs should be prohibited. 3 4 Member Liden: Supports considering florescent colors rather than prohibiting. They can be 5 very attractive if used in the right context. Also okay with stripes and patterns. 6 7 Staff: Design concepts and colors for outdoor dining should not be distracting. 8 9 Umbrellas & Umbrella Stands 10  Should be encouraged. They also provide shade. 11 12 Lighting 13 Member Liden likes the concept of kerosene lamps. 14 15 Staff: 16  Kerosene lamps would likely be a fire hazard since portable heaters are allowed. 17  The City has specific requirements regarding lighting. 18 19 DRB: Likes staff’s recommendation regarding lighting as provided for on page 2 of the staff 20 report. 21 22 Portable Heaters 23  Good idea. 24 25 Trash Receptacles 26  All outdoor dining establishments must be kept clean. City staff is discussing the 27 technical aspects of this. 28 29 Other Decorative Items 30  Awnings provide for a nice accent provided they do not extend into the public right -of-31 way. 32 33 9. SET NEXT MEETING/ADJOURNMENT 34 The next meeting will be Thursday, March 14, 2013. The meeting adjourned at 5:11 p.m. 35 36 37 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 Design Review Board February 14, 2013 Page 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Design Review Board February 14, 2013 Page 9 1 2 3 Design Review Board February 14, 2013 Page 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Design Review Board February 14, 2013 Page 11 1 Design Review Board February 14, 2013 Page 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Design Review Board February 14, 2013 Page 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Design Review Board February 14, 2013 Page 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Design Review Board February 14, 2013 Page 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Design Review Board February 14, 2013 Page 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Design Review Board February 14, 2013 Page 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Design Review Board February 14, 2013 Page 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Design Review Board February 14, 2013 Page 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Design Review Board February 14, 2013 Page 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Design Review Board February 14, 2013 Page 21 1 2