Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRBM_03142013 City of Ukiah, CA Design Review Board Design Review Board March 14, 2013 Page 1 MINUTES 1 2 Regular Meeting March 14, 2013 3 4 Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue 5 1. CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chair Liden called the Design Review Board meeting to order 6 at 3:00 p.m. 7 8 2. ROLL CALL Present: Vice Chair Tom Liden, Howie Hawkes, 9 Alan Nicholson, Nick Thayer 10 Absent: Chair Tom Hise 11 Staff Present: Shannon Riley, City Project and Program 12 Analyst 13 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary 14 Others present: 15 16 3. CORRESPONDENCE: None 17 18 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: - February 14, 2013 19 M/S Hawkes/Liden to approve February 14, 2013 minutes, as submitted. Motion carried with 20 Members Nicholson and Thayer abstaining and Chair Hise absent. 21 22 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS 23 24 6. OLD BUSINESS: 25 6A. Outdoor Dining Structure Program for Downtown Ukiah. Continue review and make 26 recommendation on draft guidelines for the Outdoor Dining Structure Program. Request 27 for Design Review Board recommendations regarding design and materials for outdoor 28 dining structures. 29 30 Shannon Riley, City Project and Program Analyst: 31  Requested the DRB continue discussion regarding the design standards in the draft 32 guidelines for the proposed Outdoor Dining Structure Program. 33  At the last regular DRB meeting in February, the DRB provided input regarding a number 34 of items that include patio surfaces, barriers, and furnishings. 35  Related to patio surfacing, the DRB likes the concept of installing sand and 36 brick/paver/stone tile because it would be easy to construct, is cost effective and 37 cleanable. 38  Attachment 1 includes the Outdoor Dining Structure packet that contains instructions 39 about the application permit process, general information about the permit and the 40 Outdoor Dining Structure Program guidelines. 41 Attachment 2 includes images of a sand and brick installation in Virginia and attachments 42 3 and 4 provide specifications for sand/paver installation over asphalt. 43  The proposed program is designed to be processed like an encr oachment permit, 44 provided the applicants follow the recommended design guidelines. For applicants 45 seeking exceptions to the standards, the project will be forwarded to the DRB for review. 46  A public meeting of the stakeholders will occur Thursday, March 21 at the Ukiah 47 Conference Center followed by a presentation to City Council are the next steps in 48 developing the program. 49  Recently attended a Traffic Engineer Committee (TEC) meeting and the committee 50 reviewed Program considerations related to parking/traffic/drainage. 51 Design Review Board February 14, 2013 Page 2  The DRB will be primarily interested in the ‘Design Standards’ section of the Outdoor 1 Dining Structure Program guideline document. 2  In general, the City is making a real effort to ‘streamline’ planning and building processes, 3 particularly with adoption of the Downtown Zoning Code (DZC) and the new ‘Rapid 4 Review’ of building projects. 5 6 DRB: 7  Observed looking at examples of outdoor dining establishments in other areas, most deal 8 with restaurants rather than ‘parklets.’ 9  Do the streetscape renovation plans for State Street include parklets. Are there public 10 parklets being designed for the State Street development? 11  Essentially what is occurring with regard to the Outdoor Dining Structure Program is the 12 taking of public right-of-way and leasing it to private restaurants. Is the City still liable 13 because the structure exists in the public right-of-way? 14  Will restaurants on State Street participate in the program? 15 16 Shannon Riley: 17  Technically, the difference between ‘parklets’ and outdoor dining structures is that 18 ‘parklets’ are usually public property where anyone can come and use them. Parklets are 19 often situated outside of restaurants and used by those restaurants even though they are 20 considered public parks. 21  Parklets are not part of Ukiah’s Outdoor Dining Structure Program. Parklets would be a 22 different program type. As such, this would not preclude Ukiah from pursuing a more 23 integrated approach like the Parklet systems in some areas that might include bulb-outs, 24 proposed sidewalk changes, planters built into sidewalks and other aesthetically pleasing 25 features that welcome/enhance/promote walkability and outdoor dining. 26  Outdoor dining structures will be owned and operated by the restaurants they are 27 associated with. 28  Outdoor dining structures are considered ‘temporary’ structures. 29  The boundaries for the program do include State Street. If the program is approved by 30 Council, the restaurants within the boundaries on State Street would be eligible to 31 participate. There are no parklets being designed for State Street. Right now without 32 redevelopment funding, the City has no money for a more integrated parklet system. 33  The Ukiah Outdoor Dining Structure Program puts the responsibility on the owner and is 34 considered to be a private project. Dining structures are in the public right-of-way. 35  Related to liability, it is the responsibility of the restaurant owner to provide and ma intain 36 liability insurance. 37  When drafting the Program, every effort was made to be consistent with the existing 38 programs and plans, such as the General Plan goals/policies and DZC, including the 39 State Streetscape Improvement Program project. The State Streetscape Improvement 40 Program calls for wider sidewalks, trees, and other design amenities/features and the 41 plan is still moving forward. It is doubtful for this reason any restaurant on State Street will 42 take advantage of the Outdoor Dining Structure Program at this time because in two 43 years or so State Street will be undergoing improvements. Another reason State Street 44 restaurant owners might not participate in the Program is because the current sidewalks 45 are 11 or 12 feet wide already and the DZC allows for sidewalk cafes with a simple 46 encroachment permit so a ‘sidewalk café’ might be a much more cost-effective means of 47 achieving outdoor dining. The DZC makes it easy for restaurant owners to have outdoor 48 cafes without building a structure. 49  The intent of moving forward with the Outdoor Dining Structure Program is to get 50 something started even though there is no funding to do a more integrated plan at this 51 point. 52  The streetscape improvement project for the Downtown core will be done in phases and 53 will begin with State Street so an opportunity exists for someone to do an outdoor dining 54 structure project in the Downtown. 55 Design Review Board February 14, 2013 Page 3 Barriers 1 Staff: 2  Some of the recommended materials/installations proposed in this section were selected 3 with consideration given to minimizing potential driver distraction due to close proximity of 4 traffic flow. 5  The recommended height limit for barriers was previously 36 inches. There was previous 6 DRB discussion about allowing for bar-type seating as was shown in the photo examples. 7 As a result of this discussion since the DRB liked some of the examples used, staff 8 changed the height limit to 48 inches to allow for bar-type seating. 9 10 Member Thayer 11  Rather than a minimum/maximum height limit, can there be a range because of traffic 12 considerations about site lines? 13  Questions whether actually streamlining outdoor dining structure projects is really a good 14 idea and/or realistically should be handled that way. 15 16 Staff: 17  The guidelines could state from 36 to 48 inches. 18  Regarding ‘open appearance’ of structures discussed in the guideline document, Chair 19 Hise had expressed concern regarding ‘cluttered’ appearance of some of the example 20 images and recommended an ‘open’ appearance. Also, at a recent TEC meeting, public 21 safety staff recommended an ‘open’ appearance in order to maintain visibility of street 22 level activity. 23 DRB: 24  How solid should the barriers be? How much open appearance is acceptable to 25 appropriately address safety and clutter issues? 26  Observed Patrona’s structure is very open and very visible. 27  There is always the concern person(s) could spend the night in one of the structures. 28 29 Member Nicholson: 30  If the structure is 50% solid, this gives space for landscaping. 31  If the structure were 70% enclosed, it could have an aesthetically pleasing design. 32 33 Member Hawkes: 34  Questioned what the 70% represents. Is it the linear square footage around the 35 structure? How does this work with the height? 36  Does not object to the 50% standard rule in the guidelines, but does not really 37 understand how it works. 38 39 Staff: 40  Barriers should not be too solid because Public Safety has a concern about visibility for 41 safety reasons. 42  If a structure were 70% enclosed, this would be an exception to the 50% standard where 43 the DRB would have to review the project anyway. As proposed, related to open 44 appearance, perimeter enclosures with a height of between 36 inches and 48 inches 45 must be at least 50 percent open. 46 47 Vice Chair Liden: 48  A structure having 70% enclosure would be invitation for people to sleep there at night. 49 50 Member Nicholson: 51  Clarified, whatever the height is, the square footage must be 50% of this height and/or for 52 whatever vertical partition there is. 53 54 Member Thayer: 55 Design Review Board February 14, 2013 Page 4  Would be beneficial to have a discussion about corner markers because the insurance 1 company is going to want to know about quantifiable space that is being insured. If the 2 space is being used for public use, the insurance company is going to want to know how 3 large the space is. 4 5 Staff: 6  Looking at the photo images examples from San Francisco and Long Beach some of the 7 structures are really open where cables/chains are used to define the space versus the 8 use of rectangular planters. 9  Related to the structures, the issue of maintaining public safety must be respected such 10 that the structure is clearly visible from the street and cannot be fully enclosed with solid 11 barriers for visibility purposes. 12  State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) has some input when it comes to 13 barriers. 14 15 DRB: 16  Related to railing type, recommends replacing ‘wrought iron’ with steel. 17  Barrier perimeters should be clearly defined with a sturdy material. Chain link is not likely 18 considered a ‘sturdy’ material and is not aesthetically pleasing. 19  One typical specification is that a barrier should be able to withstand a 200 pound lateral 20 load. Accordingly, a standard building code provides that any railing should withstand 200 21 pounds per square foot of lateral load. 22  Asked about the use of stanchions and whether or not these structures should be a 23 design consideration. In some cases, stanchions may be effective provided they are 24 durable, can withstand a lateral load and the design fits with the project intent. 25  Suggested the guideline document should likely say, ‘No removable posts or stanchions.’ 26  How do split fences and logs fit into the design as barriers? 27  May be should consider that all projects be reviewed by the DRB. 28  Is generally okay with the 50% (see through) open appearance. 29 30 Patio Surface 31 32 DRB: 33  For purposes of streamlining projects, it would be advantageous to have ‘pre -34 approved/standard patio/paving surfaces. 35  Likes sand and brick approach. 36  Consider replacing ‘Patio Surface’ with ‘Paving Surface.’ 37 38 Member Nicholson: 39  According to the guidelines questions the reason surfacing material has to be from a pre-40 approved or comparable ‘manufacturer.’ Why does the material have to come from a 41 manufacturer when a person could make his/her own material, such as tropical 42 hardwood, which is what the manufacturers use so as to save money and do something 43 unique and appealing as opposed to installing surfacing that looks like it was bought out 44 of a garden magazine. 45 46 Member Hawkes: 47  Chair Hise does not recommend the use of wood decking of any kind for safety reasons. 48 49 Staff: 50  The DRB would review all non-prefabricated deck systems that do not come from an 51 approved or comparable manufacturer. 52  The guidelines state there are two different patio surfaces that can be used without going 53 to DRB for review and they include pre-approved patio surfaces such as 54 brick/paver/stone tile over sand base or prefabricated deck system from an approved or 55 Design Review Board February 14, 2013 Page 5 comparable manufacturer. An exception from these guidelines would require DRB 1 review. 2 3 DRB: 4  Discussion about feasibility of installing sand/brick/paver/stone surfacing in terms of 5 durability and aesthetics. Would this type of surfacing really look good in Ukiah? 6  Noted there was no standard system available for the Patrona’s outdoor dining structu re. 7 Application of brick and sand or some type of paved surfacing was not an option for 8 Patrona’s because of drainage issues in the street where the structure is located and it 9 may not be an option for other restaurants because of drainage issues. 10  Related to paved surface versus decking surface it may be that certain applicants are 11 only allowed to do a decking surface because of the c onstraints about water 12 movement/drainage. 13  One of the most important issues relevant to outdoor dining structures is being a ble to 14 clean underneath the structure and that runoff is channeled appropriately into the City 15 stormdrain system. 16  Further discussion regarding Parklet examples from San Francisco and Long Beach, 17 decking materials featured from Bison, a manufacturing company, and sand/brick over 18 asphalt applications. 19  Asked about pre-cast concrete units that can be fastened/pinned into the pavement. 20  Should be able to drill some into the street so as to be able to pin in posts/concrete units 21 or the like to contain and/or define the perimeter of a structure. It may be a structure has 22 no decking but rather the dining area is defined by a cable barrier, for instance, that is 23 pinned to the street. 24  What about the use of steel, provided it is pre-approved? 25  What about just decking without paving having some sort of a decorative trim and/or 26 perimeter. Essentially, the decking would be putting its weight onto the surface and does 27 not have a lateral load. It may be that only decking is allowed and no paving. 28 29 Staff: 30  Penetration of the street to secure posts or the like for barriers is prohibited. 31  Will continue to work with public works regarding the appropriate engineering of drainage. 32 33 Member Nicholson: 34  Not being able to have a perimeter curb without some kind of attachment is an issue. 35  It sand/brick is used, there needs to be some sort of structural perimeter otherwise sand 36 will end up in the street and this is a design issue. 37 38 Staff: Confirmed the structure must have a form, as well as provide for appropriate drainage. The 39 form would essentially float on the asphalt because puncturing the asphalt is not allowed. 40 41 Member Thayer: 42  There are ‘pedestal stands’ that have corners and made to have a perimeter. There is 43 some type of container on the end of the structure that defines it. 44 45 Member Nicholson: There are such things as edge units. 46 47 Member Thayer: Edge units must be made to be able to securely interact with the public. 48 49 Vice Chair Liden: A 4 by 6 inch crib could work that has a sand/brick surface. There would not 50 be a lot weight because the weight would be spread out. 51 52 Member Thayer: The lateral load of the sand and pavers is enough and actually contains a lot of 53 weight. 54 55 Design Review Board February 14, 2013 Page 6 Member Nicholson: The structure does not necessarily have to contain anything other than just 1 have a decorative trim. 2 3 Staff: 4  The aforementioned are technical questions for review by engineering a nd public works 5 in term of feasibility and possible implementation into the Program. 6  If implementation is not possible is the DRB comfortable with allowing for the pre-7 approved, prefabricated deck system? 8  If a restaurant owner is not hiring an engineer to construct/install an outdoor dining 9 structure, an applicant must use the pre-fabricated decking system that is specifically 10 designed for outdoor dining structures. 11 12 DRB: 13  Would like to see a list of manufacturers that specialize in decking systems as there are 14 some very innovative companies in this regard. 15  Would like to see innovative projects. 16 17 Seating 18 19 Staff: 20  Language in section related to tables and chairs, materials, colors and design reflect 21 recommendations made by DRB and staff. Planning staff wanted to include language ‘or 22 similar’ in this section so as not to limit/restrict material types and allow for flexibility. 23 24 DRB: 25  Replace wrought iron with steel. 26  Likes aluminum as a material. 27  Questioned the reason ‘plain metal tabletops’ are prohibited. Has observed solid metal 28 French furniture used in the Downtown that is aesthetically pleasing. 29 30 Staff: 31  The guidelines currently state that plastic, resin, and plain metal tabletops are prohibited. 32 Bright, reflective, and florescent colors in this regard are also prohibited. 33  The concern with metal tabletops is they absorb heat and can become too hot to eat on. 34 35 DRB: 36  Metal tops painted a light color would be reflective and not so hot to the touch. 37  Likes the concept of metal tabletops. They can be commercial grade, are easy to clean 38 and look nice. 39  Most people would not likely be sitting around a table on a hot summer’s day. 40  Not necessarily okay with prohibiting tables/chairs made of plastic, resin. There are some 41 very expensive resin chairs that are nice looking and durable. 42  Okay with chairs made of stainless steel and resin. 43  Resin is essentially a generic name like wrought iron. 44 45 Staff: 46  The intent with prohibiting resin chairs is to eliminate the plastic/resin stacking chairs that 47 one sees in people’s yards. 48  Recommends the DRB come up with some better language concerning plastic/resin 49 chairs. 50  Acknowledged there are some high quality resin chairs. 51  In terms of resin chairs and what is acceptable should be left to the discretion of the DRB 52 for projects rather to the applicant. 53 54 Member Thayer: 55 Design Review Board February 14, 2013 Page 7  Language could say that if tables/chairs are plastic, resin or bright colors are proposed, 1 please consult the DRB. 2 3 Vice Chair Liden: 4  There can be very nice resin and metal chairs where bright colors could be 5 effective/attractive. It may be language needs to be modified to reflect the fact the intent 6 is to discourage/eliminate ‘cheap-looking’ furniture. 7 8 Staff: 9  An effective approach would be to provide some recommended materials/examples 10 together with some general guidelines that gives people some parameters. 11  Will eliminate references to ‘wrought iron’ in the document. 12  Will eliminate the prohibition of ‘plain metal tabletops.’ 13 14 Umbrellas and Umbrella Stands 15 16 Staff: 17  Many cities like umbrellas to be a solid color or have a complementary boarder or stripe. 18  The DZC that was recently adopted does not place any restrictions on canopy design. 19 Having one set of rules/guidelines that has not restrictions and a stricter set of guidelines 20 does not work. The outdoor dining structure guidelines should function like a ‘sub-set of 21 DZC rules. 22  Because outdoor dining structures are in the public right-of-way, the concern is driver 23 distraction so it is for this reason streamers, balloons, flashing lights and the like are 24 prohibited as are florescent colors. 25  Currently, the guideline document states, ‘all umbrella panels shall be of the same or 26 complementary solid colors.’ This likely allows for stripes provided it is of a nice design. 27  Fluorescent colors are prohibited unless the design can be done tastefully at the 28 discretion of the DRB. 29  Vinyl or plastic umbrellas are prohibited. This rule is to discourage cheap-looking 30 umbrellas that are not typically durable. 31 32 DRB: 33  May not want to discourage umbrellas with stripes. 34  Related to durability, umbrellas fabrics vary according to grade. 35  When it comes to umbrella materials, safety should be concern. 36  Likes that the guidelines allow the name of the restaurant/establishment as signage on 37 the umbrella. 38 39 Lighting 40 41 Staff: 42  There are some specifications concerning lighting, such as no chasing, neon or flashing 43 lights. 44  White lights are acceptable. 45  The guidelines do not allow for anything hanging over the public right-of-way, such as an 46 electrical cord. Patrona’s is an example of a unique situation where the site has large 47 mature trees that extend over the restaurant’s awning allowing the restaurant to run lights 48 up the trees and over the awning. 49  It is uncertain whether other restaurants in the program boundaries would have s imilar 50 structural features. 51  Consulted with City Electric Department and the department is fine with people providing 52 electricity to the structure, but the lighting must be on a dedicated circuit, a part of the 53 business that is hosting the structure as well as comply with other 54 standards/processes/specifications. 55 Design Review Board February 14, 2013 Page 8 1 DRB: 2  Notes that Patrona’s has string lighting and uses colored lights. 3 4 Other Decorative Items 5 6 DRB: No new modifications, comments/questions. 7 8 Staff: Is fabricated steel different from steel? 9 10 DRB: Steel could be cast. Using the term ‘steel’ pretty much covers everything. 11 12 Staff: 13  Will incorporate language related to stanchions and consider lateral load requirements. 14  Will consult with City Public Works Department to see if it is possible/accep table to pre-15 approve the sand/brick installation. 16  Will eliminate term ‘plain metal tabletop’ under prohibited materials. 17 18 Member Hawkes: Will consult with the City Engineer about what is necessary to be able 19 pin/secure a pole, concrete unit to allow for a border/bar in the street for barrier/containment 20 purposes. 21 22 Member Nicholson: Will provide staff with a list of manufacturers of decking systems. 23 24 DRB consensus: Is fine with the changes staff will be making to the guideline documents as 25 discussed above. 26 27 7. MATTERS FROM THE BOARD: 28 29 8. MATTERS FROM STAFF: 30 31 9. SET NEXT MEETING/ADJOURNMENT 32 The next meeting will be Thursday, April 11, 2013. The meeting adjourned at 4:42 p.m. 33 34 35 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary 36 37