HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRBM_06132013 ��ty � u�iah City of Ukiah, CA
Design Review Board
1 MINUTES
2
3 Regular Meeting June 13, 2013
4
5 Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue
6 1. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Hise called the Design Review Board meeting to order at 3:02
7 p.m.
8
9 2. ROLL CALL Present: Vice Chair Tom Liden, Howie Hawkes
10 Nick Thayer, Chair Tom Hise
11 Absent: Alan Nicholson
12 Staff Present: Kim Jordan, Senior Planner
13 Jennifer Faso, Associate Planner
14 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
15 Others present: Richard Ruff
16 Wayne Stephens
17
18 3. CORRESPONDENCE: None
19
20 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes from the April 11, 2013 and May 9, 2013
21 meetings are included for review and approval.
22
23 M/S Liden/Hise to approve May 9, 2013 minutes, as submitted. Motion carried (4-0).
24
25 M/S Liden/Thayerto approve April 11, 2013 minutes, as submitted. Motion carried (4-0).
26
27 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
28
29 Staff: Provided the DRB with a copy of comments submitted from Member Nicholson for the
30 three projects being reviewed today and these comments are incorporated into the minutes as
31 attachment 1.
32
33 6. NEW BUSINESS:
34 6A. Saucy Outdoor Dining Program Permit. Review and make recommendations on
35 request to use patio surface materials not allowed under the outdoor dining structure
36 program. The proposed structure would be located at 108 West Standley Street, APN
37 002-224-14.
38
39 Staff: The outdoor dining facility has been referred to the Board for consideration and
40 recommendation on the proposed surface type — poured in plan concrete. This is not a pre-
41 approved surface type in the Program Guidelines. Features listed in the Guidelines under
42 "Design Standards" require Board approval for a deviation from the standard. Since "Surface
43 Type" is listed as a Design Standard and poured in place concrete is not listed as a pre-approved
44 surface type, DRB review and approval is required. The applicant has already met with staff to
45 discuss the use of this material.
46
47 Senior Civil Engineer Kageyama:
48 • Has reviewed the proposed project and finds the use of cement as a surface type to be a
49 creative solution, particularly as it relates to any pavement irregularities and explained
50 technically how so.
51 • Has some concerns about the mounting brackets that go into the curb. The curb should
52 not be damaged in the process.
Design Review Board June 13, 2013
Page 1
1 • Drainage issues have been adequately addressed.
2 • Likes that the outdoor dining structure is removable in part.
3 • From a Public Works perspective, sees no problem related to the streets and supports
4 approval of the Project.
5
6 Richard Ruff, Project Architect referred to the site plan (A0.1):
7 • Commented on the installation process and noted separation sheets will be placed on the
8 existing pavement and concrete poured.
9 • Has no knowledge yet whether the concrete will be colored/stained to match the floor
10 color inside the building.
11 • The `forms' will be removed, edges cleaned and stained so the platform will be
12 aesthetically pleasing and have that clean appearance.
13 • The handrails and other related items will be bolted to the concrete slab instead of down
14 through the pavement. It is difficult to achieve anchorage on pavers that are in sand.
15 • The Mendocino County Health Department is very pleased with the Project because
16 cement will prevent food from collecting underneath the structure. The structure can be
17 easily pressure washed and cleaned.
18 • Assures that the proposed concrete platform can be easily removed if this is necessary
19 with the help of a small forklift. With the removable slab plan all joints will be caulked. The
20 intent is to get the expansion joints deep into concrete so that if sections of the structure
21 need to be dismantled/removed for various reasons they can be reattached easily.
22
23 DRB:
24 • What is the minimum thickness for the platForm/slab?
25 • Asked if the patio surface will contain rebar. Sidewalks typically do not use rebar so that
26 repairs can more easily be made.
27 • If City Public Works finds the Project in compliance with public works-related issues, has
28 no problem with the Project except possibly for aesthetics.
29 • Likes the Project and the concrete platform is a good solution. The concrete is both a
30 physical structure and `a finished' product. Essentially the pouring of concrete over
31 concrete is a good idea with the application of a slip sheet to separate the two structures.
32 It is important if the platform were to be removed for repairs, it be put back as it was
33 originally.
34 • Recommends effective use of joints that are durable in the event the platform has to be
35 dismantled for street and/or other types of repairs.
36 • Recommends a bond be required so that is there is damage to the sidewalk/street, there
37 is money available to pay for the repairs and the City does not wind up paying for the
38 repairs. Could this be tied to an Encroachment Permit?
39 • The comment made by Member Nicholson pertinent to ADA access was noted.
40 • Related to the tables on the sidewalk and the corresponding Bar Rails required by ABC, if
41 3ft. 9 inches as shown on the site plans from the sidewalk to the bar rails/roped area is
42 sufficient room for pedestrians?
43 • There was discussion about the type of finish that would be appropriate to use for the
44 structure.
45 • Is there a certain amount of sidewalk space the business needs to leave for public
46 access? 3ft. 9 in. does not appear to be very much space for the sidewalk/pedestrian
47 access and the outdoor seating area.
48
49 Member Liden has observed the sidewalk space and tables that are outdoors right now seem to
50 work sufficiently and is acceptable. The proposed Project will actually make the situation better
51 because there will be less of a curb drop-off.
52
53 Member Thayer: There will be some congestion, but this is anticipated with outdoor dining.
54
55 Richard Ruff:
Design Review Board June 13, 2013
Page 2
1 • The minimum thickness should be about 3 inches and this will be more toward the center
2 of the street. The dining structure will be sloped back toward the gutters to be able to
3 accompany spills and rainwater.
4 • Confirmed rebar will not be used.
5 • The bar rails are removable and sit on pedestals. The bar rails can always be moved
6 closer to the building.
7
8 Planning Staff: The need for the business owner to provide a bond in the event there was
9 damage to the right-of-way was not included as a requirement of the Program.
10
11 Senior Civil Engineer Kageyama:
12 • Confirmed the City Encroachment Permit does not require a bond.
13 • Some agencies do require a bond and is of the opinion this is a good idea.
14 • If the circumstance were such that the structure was abandoned, the responsibility for
15 dismantling it would likely fall to the City. The City currently has no ordinance in place that
16 requires a bond for an outdoor structure operating in the public right-of-way.
17 • The owner of the building may have to withstand a certain amount of utility risk in the
18 event the sidewalk/street has to be dug up for some unforeseeable reasons. Architect
19 Ruff has indicated that if certain sections of the platform need to be removed, they can
20 easily be recast.
21
22 Planning Staff:
23 • The applicant is required to have an agreement with the City for the actual leasing of the
24 space as part of the general requirements for the Outdoor Dining Program. Has no
25 knowledge whether or not a bond is required as part of the lease agreement. Planning
26 staff has not been part of any discussions related to what is included in the lease
27 agreement for the structure.
28 • Related to the bar rail, Architect Ruff indicated the bar rail can be moved in more toward
29 the building so it does not hang over the sidewalk.
30 • A 48-inch is the required clearance for the pedestrian path on the sidewalk. Staff has
31 informed the applicant, that as shown, the facility does not comply with this requirement
32 and the plans will need to be revised to comply. The applicant has indicated that the bar
33 top can be shifted to provide the 48-inch minimum clearance.
34
35 There was discussion regarding the yellow curb loading zone and the parking markers as shown
36 on the site plans in the location of Saucy's and Uncorked and how parking works.
37
38 DRB consensus:
39 • The proposed surface is consistent with the types of surfaces the Board had in mind
40 when helping to develop the Program guidelines.
41 • Approves of the poured in place concrete as shown.
42 • Approves of including poured in place concrete as an approved surface type for the
43 Outdoor Dining Program, subject to staff review and approval. Future Outdoor Dining
44 Facilities proposing this type of surface are not required to return to the Board for
45 approval.
46
47 M/S Liden/Hawkes to recommend the proposed Outdoor Dining Facility move forward.
48
49 6B. Stephens Residential Planned Development (File No. 13-13-REZPD-SDP-PC-CC).
50 Review and make recommendations to Planning Commission on application for Planned
51 Development and Site Development to construct four one bedroom apartments with
52 parking and one second unit located at 312 For Street, APN 002-101-15 &002-101-14.
53
54 Setback requirements and site planninq
55
Design Review Board June 13, 2013
Page 3
1 Senior Planner Jordan:
2 • The property is zoned PD. No regulations were included in the PD for the two parcels
3 included in this Project.
4 • Staff requests DRB input on the Project, including: 1) the proposed 5-foot setbacks for
5 the second unit which would be constructed above the garage located on the interior lot
6 and 2) the 15-foot street side setback required on Myron Place and Ford Street but not
7 provided by the Project. The second unit should be setback 10-feet from the rear and
8 side property lines, primarily to address privacy concerns. The units on the corner lot
9 should have a 15-foot setback all the way around Ford Street and Myron Place.
10 • Since the Project is a PD, deviations from the required setbacks may be approved when
11 there are reasons to support the deviations.
12 • Member Nicholson's provided comments regarding the Steven Residential PD related to
13 the setback standard for the one bedroom apartment over the garage and the design
14 concerning the four one bedroom apartments in two new structures.
15
16 Richard Ruff, Project Architect:
17 • Related to the second unit dwelling above the garage, the existing garage has a 5-foot
18 rear setback and a 5-foot side setback. The required two story setback is ten feet. To
19 accomplish this, the north wall has to move 5 feet to the south and the east wall has to
20 move 5 feet to the west. The off-set bearing walls necessary would add to the cost of
21 engineering and construction. Also, the unit would be reduced considerably from 736 sq.
22 ft. to 527 sq. ft. Rezoning to PD-Residential allows the applicant to request maintaining
23 the 5-foot rear and 5-foot side setbacks for the second floor unit.
24 • Privacy impacts to the adjacent properties can be mitigated with window replacement and
25 glazing options and/or other mitigating measures.
26 • The existing house was built when on-site parking was not required. The Project
27 includes the one parking space required for the second unit which is provided in the
28 garage.
29
30 DRB: Does the garage structure have an adequate foundation to accommodate a second story
31 structure?
32
33 Richard Ruff: The plan is to use a `post and beam' scenario. The foundation was constructed in
34 the 1980s so it is not necessary to replace the foundation. Reinforcing with footings on the
35 corners and middle section should be sufficient to accommodate a second story.
36
37 Richard Ruff: Related to design considerations and compliance with setback requirements,
38 proposed pulling the whole front building back 4 feet because there is 30 feet between carports to
39 make vehicular maneuvering on-site very easy. The interior court could then be 26 feet. These
40 modifications would allow for 4 addition feet on the corner.
41
42 DRB: Would support pulling the front building back 2 or 4 feet to better comply with the setback
43 requirements for the corner lot that rounds from Ford Street into Myron Place and still provide for
44 adequate parking space in the interior of the lot. Agrees a 30-foot allowance between carports
45 should be sufficient room for cars to maneuver.
46
47 Planning Staff: The storage and laundry building is 5 feet from the back property line because
48 this is the requirement. This creates unusable space. Asked if the DRB would support having the
49 building closer to the property line for the purpose of creating more space on the actual site.
50 Since the Project is a PD, deviations from setback standards are allowed, it makes sense. In this
51 case, there could be more usable space for the tenants or additional landscaping.
52
53 Wayne Stephens: There are Redwood trees on the north property line of the adjacent neighbor
54 so having a structure close to the property line could compromise the root system of the trees.
Design Review Board June 13, 2013
Page 4
1 There may potentially be drainage issues associated with having the structure situated closer to
2 the property line.
3
4 Richard Ruff: The building could be moved closer to the property line if the root system of the
5 trees can be avoided. It is possible to go around the root system area.
6
7 Member Thayer: It is not a good idea to move the storage/laundry building closer to the property
8 line because of new growth tree spouts that occur when tree roots are stressed. These seedlings
9 are a nuisance and have to be routinely cut.
10
11 Chair Hise:
12 • Recommends moving the detached storage/laundry building more toward the property
13 line and making the building more compact and/or square in design and place the
14 building in the corner.
15 • There would be less impact on the trees. The building would have to be reconfigured to
16 figure out the various entryways for the tenants.
17 • Consolidating the building into the corner would not affect access for the tenants because
18 there would be a common walkway and the privacy of tenants with the fencing would
19 remain private.
20 • The space between the property line and the detached storage/laundry building is
21 essentially wasted space and of no use to anyone.
22
23 Richard Ruff:
24 • Redesigning the building is a possibility.
25 • Would like to keep the present design and proposed location because the plan is to
26 provide fencing on the site so the back courtyards remain private.
27 • Explained how the tenants would access the storage/laundry building so as to avoid
28 having to go through the carports of other tenants.
29 • Having the doors on the second floor facing one another is for security purposes.
30
31 Member Thayer:
32 • Does not see how moving the detached accessory into the corner would be beneficial.
33 • With four units on that particular site does not really allow for a lot of privacy for the
34 tenants residing there.
35 • Supports impacting the trees on the neighboring property as little as possible. If the trees
36 were non-existing, it would make sense to reconfigure the location of the laundry/storage
37 building.
38 • Would like to see fencing where feasible, particularly off the back corner of the lot.
39
40 Planning Staff: An arborist report may be required to ensure that the Project does not damage
41 the trees on the neighboring property.
42
43 DRB:
44 • While it may be a good idea if the apartments were moved back 2 or 4 feet to better
45 comply with the 15-foot setback requirement for corner lots, is fine with what has been
46 proposed because visually this would not make a difference. One cannot tell where the
47 property line is. While it may be a `bit tighY at the corner of Ford Street and Myron Place,
48 the curb and sidewalk lines are in place and not compromised by the development. The
49 Project is consistent with the curb, gutter and sidewalk requirements. The development is
50 only a `little tighY at the corner where Ford Street turns into Myron Place.
51 • Could consider if there is a way to move the detached laundry/storage building more
52 toward the north property line, but is fine with what has been proposed if this is not
53 feasible.
54 • Likes the parking plans as shown on the site plans. Likes there are not two driveways on
55 two different streets.
Design Review Board June 13, 2013
Page 5
1 Materials, elevations, colors & landscapinq
2
3 DRB: Asked about the elevations for the different buildings.
4
5 Richard Ruff:
6 • The exiting residence is a building on `its own' such that everything else wraps around it.
7 • Related to the corner lot project, below each one bedroom unit is a carport with two
8 parking spaces for a total of 8 parking spaces.
9 • The four storage spaces and the laundry room are accessible to all tenants.
10 • Cars enter on a 20-foot wide driveway from Myron Place.
11 • Explained the proposed materials.
12 • The existing residence will eventually be painted the same color palate as the new
13 buildings/units. The intent is to build the apartments and later paint the existing residence
14 because this building was painted not long ago.
15 • The second unit above the garage will be painted when the existing residence is painted.
16
17 Wayne Stephens: Confirmed the apartments would be constructed first. After the apartments
18 are rented, the second unit would be constructed and the existing house and second unit would
19 be painted to match the new buildings.
20
21 Chair Hise:
22 • Likes the color scheme selected.
23 • Would like to see the existing house painted at the same time the garage and second
24 story unit is painted to aesthetically unify all the structures on the two parcels.
25
26 DRB: Further discussed the siding and roofing materials that are proposed for the Project.
27
28 Member Thayer referred to the landscaping plan and list of plant species proposed for the
29 Project:
30 • For the street trees, recommends applicant review the City Master Street Tree List.
31 • The proposed list for the Medium Tall plant size at maturity is essentially plants that are
32 12'-12' at maturity. Recommends being more conscious about size of plants at maturity.
33 • Related to the trellis wall plantings, questioned whether it would be beneficial to enclose
34 the patios.
35 • Some of the species on the plant list could be used as 'fill-ins' to provide for a more
36 cohesive landscaping appearance.
37 • The plant list is extensive and could be more refined, but in general will work for the
38 Project.
39
40 Richard Ruff: For the patios, suggests berms.
41
42 Planning Staff: Street trees are required and the applicant can select tree species from the City-
43 approved Street Tree List.
44
45 DRB consensus:
46 • The Project addresses the matter of density well. Proving higher density housing and not
47 "sprawl" is a good idea.
48 • Likes the Project, as designed.
49 • Approves of the setbacks for the apartments. The setbacks may be less than required
50 by the R-3 zoning district; however the PD allows the approval of reduced setbacks. The
51 reduced setbacks are consistent with the setbacks on Myron Street. The reduced
52 setback close to the corner will not be noticed due to the location of the property line to
53 the radius of the curb. There is adequate line of site, so additional setback is not required
54 and the Myron Place is not a busy street since it is a cul-de-sac.
Design Review Board June 13, 2013
Page 6
1 • Approves of the 5-foot setbacks for the second unit. The second unit does not need to
2 be setback the 10 feet required by the zoning ordinance. This allows for a larger, more
3 functional unit and the setbacks are consistent with the neighborhood on Myron. It does
4 not appear that the matter of potential privacy impacts to the neighbors will be a problem.
5 The windows for the second story are fine as proposed and do not need to be opaque or
6 clerestory in order to provide privacy.
7 • Applicant needs to review the City's Approved Master Street Tree List and select species
8 from this list.
9
10 DRB Conditions of Approval:
11 • Require use of a brown color shingle for the apartments/other structures to match that of
12 the existing house and a material sample be provided to the Planning Commission.
13 • Require the existing house to be painted when the second unit is constructed above the
14 garage in order to tie the two units and the Project together
15
16 M/S Thayer/Hawkes to recommend approval of the Project with the associated notes as
17 provided above. Motion carried (4-0).
18
19 7. OLD BUSINESS
20 6B. Mendocino County Historic Society — Annex Building (File No. 13-07-UP-SDP-PC).
21 Review and make recommendations to Planning Commission on the revised plans for a
22 new annex building at 603 West Perkins Street, APN 001-339-03.
23
24 Planning Staff: The DRB has reviewed this design at a previous meeting and gave preliminary
25 approval to the conceptual drawings presented. The applicant has provided formal plans for DRB
26 and Planning Commission review. The focus of today's meeting is to review the complete
27 submittal with focus on the colors and landscaping plan.
28
29 DRB: Asked about the color of the roof for the new building.
30
31 Richard Ruff:
32 • The siding is hardi-board.
33 • The roof would be asphalt shingle and the color is intended to match the museum
34 building.
35
36 Planning Staff: A roof sample is required as part of a Site Development Permit.
37
38 DRB:
39 • Would be okay with the applicant submitting a roof sample to staff for approval.
40 • It is difficult to determine the true color of the museum building roof from the photo
41 provided.
42 • It is likely the roofs should match.
43 • Would like a roof sample of the existing museum building as well as a roof sample for
44 what is being proposed for the new building. The roof color for the museum may not be
45 compatible with the colors proposed for the annex building.
46 • The color of the roof for the archival annex building should not be lighter than the roof of
47 the museum building, but rather darker in color.
48
49 Planning Staff: Recommends adding a condition that the roof sample must come back to the
50 DRB after Planning Commission review.
51
52 Member Thayer:
53 • The plant selection is somewhat accurate for a historical site. There is an opportunity for
54 the landscaping to match the architecture a little more if the intent is for the landscaping
55 to reflect that historical aspect.
Design Review Board June 13, 2013
Page 7
1 • Is concerned about the landscaping being in proximity to many of the existing trees
2 knowing the trees have not been irrigated over the years.
3 • Noted some of trees species selected indicate moderate irrigation, but this is not
4 accurate. To this end, recommends substituting Dogwood that would be located in close
5 proximity to the existing trees for a native Redbud or Eastern Redbud.
6 • The Lilac trees are fine. They are somewhat drought tolerant for this area.
7 • There are a few plant species selected that are proposed for the sun that should be in the
8 shade, such as the Helleborus orientialis (HEL).
9 • Referred to the Planting Plan and recommended species labeled `H' be relocated to a
10 shaded area and consider Lavender (LAV), Coreopsis Hybrid (COR) or Penstemon
11 Hybrid (PH).
12 • Along the interior property line, may want to substitute Vibernum (V)for`PT.' `PT' may be
13 too large for this location.
14 • Plant species of bright colors are good for historical sites.
15 • Erigeron (E) is a good choice and would be a good substitution for the `PT' areas since
16 the Pittosporum wants to be a small tree.
17 • The landscape plan lists other plant possibilities for shade and sun as well as for large
18 and small shrubs some of which are not familiar.
19 • Since the building is on the National Register, it may be that the landscaping should likely
20 have an official review process that is subject to precise methodology/protocol.
21 • The plantings shown at the corner of Church and Dora streets will require a maintenance
22 plan and commitment to care for the landscaping. If this cannot be done, could simplify
23 the plantings here by just using ground covers from the carpet family (white or red) and
24 rosa (various).
25 • The bark path is a functional element that is not historically accurate. A pebble path
26 would be more historically accurate.
27 • Overall, does approve of the landscape plan.
28
29 There was DRB discussion about pathways and what types of materials might be the most
30 historical accurate. The bark is certainly acceptable. The intent is to maintain a `quiet theme' for
31 landscaping and such in a museum setting.
32
33 Member Thayer: Highly recommends the Rosa various (R) as part of the landscaping plan
34 related to small shrubs/ground cover.
35
36 DRB: Landscape designer needs to correct the `north' arrow on the landscape plans.
37
38 DRB consensus:
39 • Correct the north arrow on the landscaping plan prior to plans going to Planning
40 Commission.
41 • Likes that the Project no longer impacts the trees.
42 • Likes Member Thayer's landscaping recommendations.
43 • Agrees with applicanYs recommendation to use hardi-board with 4 inch exposure.
44
45 DRB Condition of Approval:
46 • Sample of roof color to be provided and to return to the DRB for review and approval.
47
48 M/S Hawkes/Liden to recommend Planning Commission approval of the Project, as proposed
49 with the condition related to the roof and Member Thayer's landscaping suggestions. Motion
50 carried (4-0).
51
52 8. MATTERS FROM THE BOARD:
53
54 9. MATTERS FROM STAFF: Discussion about the DRB's role in reviewing projects.
55 Recommended that the Board's recommendation to the Zoning Administrator, Planning
Design Review Board June 13, 2013
Page 8
1 Commission, or City Council include any conditions of approval and/or recommendations
2 for changes to the Project. The recommendation could also be that the Project returns to
3 the Board with the revisions recommended by the Board prior to moving on to the next
4 step in the process.
5
6 Chair Hise:
7 • Asked staff to follow-up on the Board's previous inquiry as to conflict of interest rules that
8 apply with the Board.
9
10 Staff: Will follow-up and report back to the Board at a future meeting.
11
12 10. SET NEXT MEETING/ADJOURNMENT
13 The next meeting will be Thursday, July 11, 2013. The meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m.
14
15
16 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
17
Design Review Board June 13, 2013
Page 9