HomeMy WebLinkAbout09192013 - packet City of Ukiah
Design Review Board
Agenda
Thursday September 19, 3:00 P.M.
Conference Room # 1
The Design Review Board encourages applicants and/or their representatives to be available at the meeting to
answer questions so that no agenda item need be deferred to a later date due to a lack of pertinent information.
1. CALL TO ORDER: UKIAH CIVIC CENTER, CONFERENCE ROOM #1
300 SEMINARY AVENUE, UKIAH
2. ROLL CALL: Members Liden, Thayer, Hise, Nicholson, Hawkes
3. CORRESPONDENCE: None.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes from the July 11, 2013 will be available for review at the
October 10, 2013 meeting.
5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS: The City of Ukiah Design Review Board welcomes
input from the audience. In order to be heard, please limit your comments to three (3) minutes per person
and not more than ten (10) minutes per subject. The Brown Act regulations do not allow action to be
taken on audience comments.
6. NEW BUSINESS:
7. OLD BUSINESS:
A. Mendocino County Historic Society — Annex Building 603 West Perkins, APN 001-229-
03 (File No. 13-07-UP-SDP-PC). Site Development Permit Condition Compliance. Review
and approval of proposed roof material for annex building.
8. MATTERS FROM THE BOARD:
9. MATTERS FROM STAFF:
A. Feibusch building. 199 South School Street, APN 002-226-07. (File No. 13-16 SDP-PC)
Written project update and as built elevation provided by applicant.
10. SET NEXT MEETING: October 10, 2013
11. ADJOURNMENT:
The City of Ukiah complies with ADA requirements and will attempt to reasonably accommodate
individuals with disabilities upon request. If possible, please contact the City of Ukiah (707) 463-
6200 at least 72 hours prior to the meeting time.
��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 6B. Mendocino County Historic Society — Annex Building (File No. 13-07-UP-SDP-PC).
19 Review and make recommendations to Planning Commission on the revised plans for a
20 new annex building at 603 West Perkins Street, APN 001-339-03.
21
22 Planning Staff:
23 • DRB to complete the design package by reviewing the proposed color palate and
24 landscaping plan.
25 • Referred to the project description submitted by Architect Ruff and asked about the
26 composition of the 4-inch siding.
27
28 DBR:
29 • Asked about the color of the roof for the new building.
30
31 Richard Ruff:
32 • The composition is hardiboard.
33 • The roof color is intended to match the exiting museum building.
34
35 Planning Staff:
36 • A roof sample is required.
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.
41 • It is likely the roofs should match.
42 • Would like a roof sample of the existing museum building as well as a roof sample for
43 what is being proposed for the new building if it is not matching.
44 • The color of the roof for the archival annex building should not be lighter than the roof of
45 the museum building, but rather darker in color.
46
47 Planning Staff:
48 • Recommends adding a condition that the roof sample must come back to the DRB after
49 Planning Commission review.
50
51 Member Thayer:
Design Review Board June 13, 2013
Page 1
1 • The plant selection is somewhat accurate for a historical site. There is an opportunity for
2 the landscaping to match the architecture a little more if the intent is for the landscaping
3 to reflect that historical aspect.
4 • Is concerned about the landscaping being in proximity to many of the existing trees
5 knowing the trees have not been irrigated over the years.
6 • Noted some of trees species selected indicate moderate irrigation, but this is not
7 accurate. To this end, recommends substituting Dogwood that would be located in close
8 proximity to the existing trees for a native Redbud or Eastern Redbud.
9 • The Lilac trees are fine. They are somewhat drought tolerant for this area.
10 • Approves of the ground cover and shrubs.
11 • There are a few plant species selected that are proposed for the sun that should be in the
12 shade, such as the Helleborus orientialis (HEL).
13 • Referred to the Planting Plan and recommended species labeled `H' be relocated to a
14 shaded area and consider Lavender (LAV), Coreopsis Hybrid (COR) or Penstemon
15 Hybrid (PH).
16 • May want to reconsider plant species for area designated `PT' as the shrub species
17 chosen may not be a good fit and recommends Viburnum (V). This plant species is a little
18 more compact than the Pitrosforum Tenuifolium (Silver Sheen) that would be too tight of
19 a fit for this area.
20 • Plant species of bright colors are good for historical sites.
21 • Erigeron (E) is a good choice and would be a good substitution for the `PT' areas.
22 • The landscape plan lists other plant possibilities for shade and sun as well as for large
23 and small shrubs some of which are not familiar.
24 • The landscaping should likely have an official review process that is subject to precise
25 methodology/protocol since the site/building is listed on the national historical registry.
26 • Overall, does approve of the landscape plan.
27 • Incorporating the landscaping proposed will compel the museum to take `really' care of
28 the landscaping.
29 • The bark path is more of a functional element from an aesthetic standpoint as it
30 meanders into the Cork Oaks and/or tree area.
31
32 There was DRB discussion about pathways and what types of materials might be the most
33 historical accurate. The bark is certainly acceptable. The intent is to maintain a `quiet theme' for
34 landscaping and such in a museum setting.
35
36 Member Thayer:
37 • Highly recommends the Rosa various (R) as part of the landscaping plan related to small
38 shrubs/ground cover.
39
40 DRB:
41 • Landscape designer needs to correct the `north' arrow on the landscape plans.
42
43 DRB consensus:
44 • Add a condition for the roof.
45 • Likes Member Thayer's landscaping recommendations.
46
47 M/S Hawkes/Liden to recommend Planning Commission approval of the Project, as proposed
48 with the condition related to the roof and Member Thayer's landscaping suggestions. Motion
49 carried (4-0).
50
51
Design Review Board June 13, 2013
Page 2