HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRBM_11142013 ��ty � u�iah City of Ukiah, CA
Design Review Board
1
2 MINUTES
3
4 Regular Meeting November 14, 2013
5
6 Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue
7 1. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Hise called the Design Review Board meeting to order at 3:00
8 p.m. in Conference Room #3.
9
10 2. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Tom Hise, Vice Chair Tom Liden,
11 Nick Thayer, Howie Hawkes, Alan Nicholson,
12 Absent:
13 Staff Present: Jennifer Faso, Associate Planner
14 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
15 Others present: Butch Bainbridge
16
17 3. CORRESPONDENCE: None
18
19 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes from the July 11, 2013 and September 19, 2013
20 meetings are included for review and approval.
21
22 Member Liden/Nicholson approved minutes from the July 11, 2013 and September 19, 2013
23 meetings as submitted with Chair Hise abstaining from the July 11, 2013 minutes. Motion carried
24 by all AYE voice vote of the members present.
25
26 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
27
28 6. NEW BUSINESS:
29 6A. Realty World/Selzer Realty Wall Sign. (File No. 13-21-SDP-ZA). Review and make
30 recommendations to the Zoning Administrator on request for Minor Site Development
31 Permit to allow a wall sign to be installed on the south elevation of 511 South Orchard
32 Avenue, APN 002-340-38.
33
34 Associate Planner Faso:
35 • Gave a staff report.
36 • The Project involves a new sign that does not face the street frontage and as such
37 requires a Minor Site Development Permit to allow the sign at the proposed location.
38 • The existing monument sign will remain and the proposed new sign will be an addition to
39 the existing signage.
40 • The required minor Site Development Permit findings are provided for reference in the
41 staff report.
42 • A Zoning Administrator hearing is required for a minor site development permit and
43 therefore requests the DRB provide comments and a recommendation to the Zoning
44 Administrator.
45
46 Butch Bainbridge, Sign Contractor and Applicant Representative:
47 • The applicant intends to recycle a sign for reuse and therefore the property owner may
48 not be open to a new location for the sign.
49
50
51
Design Review Board November 14, 2013
Page 1
1 Member Nicholson:
2 • While the Project meets all the City sign ordinance requirements for signage, the
3 proposed sign does not aesthetically complement the building. The proposed sign
4 essentially creates `visual clutter' on the building.
5 • The existing monument sign is very tasteful and appropriately located.
6
7 Member Thayer:
8 • The existing monument sign is not clearly visible and the entrance/access to the building
9 is not readily understood and this is likely the reason the applicant is proposing a sign on
10 the building to advertise the business.
11 • `Signage essentially tells the world that something is poorly designed.' If a sign is
12 necessary to advertise that a building exists, something is wrong with the building to
13 begin with or that the front entrance is not properly defined/oriented.
14 • Questioned whether the sign and/or letters for the sign should be of the size, scale and
15 proportion being proposed.
16
17 Member Hawkes:
18 • Building owner should question whether he actually needs the sign.
19 • Does not help locate the building.
20
21 Butch Bainbridge:
22 • The wall sign will require some modifications so that it works/fit on the building.
23 • Acknowledged that the access/entrance to the building is not clearly defined for the
24 building and this is the reason the applicant desires a wall sign.
25 • The letters will be lit; the background will not be lit.
26 • Having a sign at the driveway entrance is for the purpose of `way finding' and may not
27 define where the entrance to the building is. As such, additional signage is often
28 proposed to more clearly define the entrance and/or actual location of a particular
29 building. This approach for signage is typically used to define a campus for a business.
30
31 Member Liden:
32 • Is of the opinion there should be a design that better fits the size and proportion of the
33 building.
34
35 Chair Hise:
36 • Also, acknowledged the proposed sign does not help locate the building.
37
38 DRB:
39 • Questioned whether the sign was really necessary. It may be that modifications could be
40 made to the existing monument sign and/or to the landscaping so as to provide for more
41 visibility of the existing sign.
42
43 DRB consensus:
44 • Was generally supportive of the proposed project. However, if the applicant would
45 consider enlarging the monument sign and not putting the sign on the side elevation of
46 the building they would be supportive of this.
47
48 Staff:
49 • Should the applicant proposed to enlarge the sign the Project would be required to go to
50 the Planning Commission for approval of an amendment to the original site development
51 permit that approved the monument sign.
52
53 M/S Liden/Nicholson recommends approval of the Project, as proposed. However if the
54 applicant would consider enlarging the existing monument sign and/or make modifications to the
55 existing landscaping allowing for better visibility of the existing monument sign and not installing
Design Review Board April 11, 2013
Page 2
1 the wall sign, the DBR would be supportive of an amendment to the original Site Development
2 Permit that included the monument sign. Motion carried (5-0).
3
4 7. OLD BUSINESS
5
6 8. MATTERS FROM THE BOARD:
7
8 9. MATTERS FROM STAFF:
9
10 10. SET NEXT MEETING/ADJOURNMENT
11 The next meeting will be Thursday, December 12, 2013. The meeting adjourned at 3:40 p.m.
12
13
14 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
15
Design Review Board April 11, 2013
Page 3