The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01082015 - packet City of Ukiah Revised Design Review Board Agenda Thursday January 8, 2015, 3:00 P.M. Conference Room # 3 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 #3 300 SEMINARY AVENUE, UKIAH 2. ROLL CALL: Members Liden, Thayer, Nicholson, Hawkes, and Chair Hise 3. CORRESPONDENCE: None. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes from the November 13, 2014 and December 11tn 2014 meeting are included for review and approval. 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: A. 499 North State Site Development Permit (File No.: 598): Continued from December 11, 2015 meeting; review and recommendation to the Zoning Administrator on color board and landscaping plan for 499 North State Street, APN 002-152-07. B. 517 Main Street (PEP) Preliminary Application (File No.: 646): Review and Recommendation on a Precise Development Plan to allow the construction of three two- story building clusters that will include a total of 42 low income senior housing units, Community Center, and designated open space. 8. MATTERS FROM THE BOARD: 9. MATTERS FROM STAFF: 10. SET NEXT MEETING: February 12, 2015 11. ADJOURNMENT: Americans with Disabilities Act Accommodations. Please be advised that the City needs to be notified 72 hours in advance of a meeting if any specific accommodations or interpreter services are needed in order for you to attend. The City complies with ADA requirements and will attempt to reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities upon request. Please call (707) 463-6752 or (707)463-6207 to arrange accommodations. ��ty � u�iah City of Ukiah, CA Design Review Board 1 2 MINUTES 3 4 Regular Meeting November 13, 2014 5 6 Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue 7 1. CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chair Liden called the Design Review Board meeting to order 8 at 3:00 p.m. in Conference Room #3. 9 10 2. ROLL CALL Present: Vice Chair Tom Liden, Nick Thayer, 11 Howie Hawkes, Alan Nicholson 12 13 Absent: Chair Tom Hise, 14 15 Staff Present: Kim Jordan, Principal Planner 16 Michelle Johnson, Assistant Planner 17 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary 18 19 Others present: Ann Baker 20 Sherrie Smith-Ferri 21 22 3. CORRESPONDENCE: 23 24 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes from October 9, 2014 meeting are included for 25 review and approval. 26 27 M/S Hawkes/Nicholson approved minutes from October 9, 2014 meeting, as submitted. Motion 28 carried by all AYE voice vote of the members present(4-0). 29 30 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS 31 32 6. NEW BUSINESS: 33 6A. Grace Hudson Nature Education Project Site Development Permit, 531 South Main 34 Street (File No.: 569): Review and recommendation to Planning Commission on a Site 35 Development Permit for the Grace Hudson Nature Education Project, 531 South Main 36 Street, APNs 002-281-26 and 002-281-31. 37 38 Ann Baker, Landscape Architect referred to the site plans for the construction of the Grace 39 Hudson Museum Nature Education Project and presented the Project: 40 • The Museum site improvements are designated according to area: 41 o Area 1 pertains to wild garden and everything except trees & garage. 42 o Area 2 is the Pomo Plants Courtyard to include entrance paths, boardwalk, kiosk 43 interpretive signage, pergolas, entry gate, wood and wrought iron fencing and 44 outdoor materials prep area. 45 o Area 3 is the entryway and parking lot to include high albedo paving, solar panel 46 shade structure, stormwater garden, bioswales, landscaping and irrigation, entry 47 path from Main Street and entry sign for Cultural Center. 48 o Area 4 pertains to Sun House landscape and security fence and gates. 49 • Sheet 0.1 shows the entire museum campus that was gifted to the City for the purposes 50 of a museum giving particular attention to the Project elements as shown on the site 51 plans that include: entry court, community courtyard, waterworld, salmon run (See sheet 52 WF.03, Salmon Run Plan), graywater garden, pedestrian connection, parking lot, Design Review Board November 13, 2014 Page 1 1 perimeter fencing, various garden and waterworks areas (see sheet WF.01, water feature 2 site plan), swale/wet meadow area, classroom area that will host educational 3 workshops/seminars/programs and other elements listed on the `Major Site Elements' of 4 the site plans. Explained the classroom area is considered to be one of the more 5 progressive structures in that it has a butterfly roof and incorporates a strict graywater 6 landscape concerning drainage on the site as well as other aesthetically pleasing 7 features. 8 • Gave a project description and talked more about the `major site elements'for the Project 9 as shown on site plan sheets 0.1 & 0.2 as they relate to drainage and the City stormwater 10 system, parking and/or other infrastructure/site improvements and features. 11 • Sheet 0.3 specifically outlines the Museum Nature Education Project components and 12 location thereof. 13 • Recommended review of sheet L6.00 that represents a 3D view of the site for purposes 14 of better understanding of the project components. 15 • Explained the managing consideration given the existing large Valley Oak tree on the site 16 that is in decline. There will be exhibits about the Oak tree that include information/art 17 exhibits/sculptures and about animals and birds that use oak trees. 18 • There will be exhibits about grasses, Chaparrel plant community, and fire exhibit area 19 and showed the location. 20 • The Brush Arbor area will be used for events and explained the design and materials 21 being used and noted this area overlaps onto mobile native sod area that can seat up to 22 200 people for larger events/seasonal festivals around harvest times. There will be 23 exhibits inside the area about the `cultural values and sustainability/the sharing of 24 resources' in terms of harvesting such that the seating is more than is necessary. This 25 area can be thought of as more of a cultural space. 26 • Talked other areas that will be used for exhibits that talk about the Ukiah Valley and 27 subsequent changes that have occurred over time. 28 • Talked about the `basket circle' area and significance thereof that will include a famous 29 mosaic done by a local artist. 30 • Garden areas will provide information about the vegetation and corresponding animal 31 habitats. 32 • Explained about the `artistic gallery and/or sculpture gallery and function that will include 33 sculptures as featured in `Pomo stories' and associated artifacts/artistic elements. 34 • Consideration was given as to how best to protect the exhibit areas and Sun House 35 Museum from potential vandalism and/or other negative activities and referred to the 36 fencing for the site. 37 • Provided a material/colors sample board and explained the use/design and significance 38 thereof for the Project. (See sheet MS1.01) 39 • Related to the illustration for the wall and fencing as provided for on sheet L7.04 where 40 the intent is to have very permeable sections around the Sun House and referred to 41 sheet L7.05 to illustrate the design concept. Explained how the fencing would work 42 with/embrace the existing historic split rail fence that is located in front of the Museum. 43 The fence details are shown on sheet L7.06. There is a taller cable wire fence behind the 44 pedestrian connection/split rail fence. The intent is to make the security fence as invisible 45 as possible. Did not want to put anything in front of the Sun House where the concern is 46 vandalism and/or the attraction/taking over by undesirable/transient persons frequenting 47 the area like what happened to the Museum park. 48 • Sheets L7.01 through L7.03 show the landscape details and plantings. Sheet D1.02 49 represents the existing tree list. 50 • Sheet A2.02 represents the garden entry and conference room plans. 51 52 DRB: 53 • Asked about the museum and connection to the community garden area in terms of 54 access. Design Review Board November 13, 2014 Page 2 1 Member Hawkes: 2 • What is the intent of a Brush Arbor? 3 4 Sherri Smith-Ferri: 5 • Related to the museum property, development of the Stormwater Garden is to essentially 6 address drainage which concerns the land behind the parking lot fence and is where the 7 community garden is currently located. Access to the community garden comes from 8 Cleveland Lane. People do not go through the museum property to access this garden. 9 10 Ann Baker: 11 • The Brush Arbor is a particular kind of structure that essentially consists of poles and 12 very similar to a `round house' in shape only not as permanent (sheet A2.01, Brush Arbor 13 & Outdoor Shelter plans). The brush arbor is what provides shade and resembles a 14 `ramada' with open sides such that in the summer provides a cool area. The `brush' 15 component will actually feature a cloth fabric. The arbor will not have any plant/vegetation 16 growing on it. The concept is best displayed on sheet L6.00. The permeable cable wire 17 fencing coming around the Sun House can be seen on this drawing. Behind the Brush 18 Arbor a section turns into part of the watershed block which gives way to the cable wire 19 fencing in the garden area. The intent is to make certain people can believe they are in a 20 natural space even though there may be other uses and activities occurring in the area 21 and a diversity concepts also occurring in the surrounding neighborhood that compete 22 with the natural environment. The Project was intended to create an environment having 23 an interest and promotes `quiet.' Would like to see the park area that has for years been 24 neglected nicely developed and highly complementary to the other uses on the site. 25 • Referred to sheet L7.04 and explained the two indentations in the wall section 26 accompanying the street trees that are out on the street. The street trees will not be 27 planted at the curb but rather next to the wall that will allow access to the greater 28 swale/wet meadow area behind. 29 • The fence/wall concept is an opportunity to include a story by putting including a basketry 30 pattern on the wall which is repetitive (sheet SI1.01 and S11.02, signage & perimeter 31 fencing graphics). Would like to propose a new sign at the corner of the driveway as well 32 as a sign for the Sun House. Would like to have permanent signs that announce the 33 exhibits. The Museum changes exhibits approximately quarterly. 34 • The focus was how to effectively work the new fence and gates with the split rail fence 35 that is not in the best condition. The Project objective is to strike a balance with what is 36 existing in terms of structures and landscaping and what is being proposed as part of the 37 grant project and to have them harmonize nicely. 38 • Talked about the lighting concepts (sheet E2.01 lighting plans). Is required to light the 39 ADA path of travel in the parking lot to comply with Title 24 regulations. LED motion 40 detection high efficiency lights will be used. 41 • Sheet A2.01 includes the Brush Arbor & outdoor shelter floor plans; A2.02 includes the 42 garden entry & conference plans; A2.03 includes the Museum & public room floor plan. 43 Exterior elevations for some of the other components are also included in the plans. 44 45 Member Liden: 46 • Asked about alternative options on how to best utilize space. 47 • Asked pedestrian walkways/trails. 48 • Asked if the resident unit on the property adjacent to Museum will go away with the new 49 senior housing project? 50 • Would the meeting room size be reduced? 51 • Asked about the space behind the Museum offices and whether this would be made 52 more accessible to the public or will it be retained as a `private space'for staff purposes? 53 • The working circuit on the campus to get from one element and/or area to another is a 54 loop scenario? Design Review Board November 13, 2014 Page 3 1 Member Thayer: 2 • Related to effective use of space noted the historic landscaping designation and 3 corresponding components connected to the Sun House cannot be altered and must 4 remain consistent with the architecture even if this is not the best use of space. 5 • Acknowledged the intent is to construct a fence to protect the Sun House and Museum. 6 • Asked about the restroom configurations that changed the entrance experience at the 7 drive-court. Requested clarification regarding the intent of side-courtyard next to the 8 community room and noted this area to also be fenced. 9 • Referred to L6.00 and asked about the `bump-outs' on the back side of the fence in the 10 conference room area. 11 • Asked about access and pedestrian connection on the Museum campus. 12 • Asked if there were plans to purchase land that may be available behind the Museum 13 property. 14 15 Ann Baker: 16 • Any landscaping/design features added to the Sun House historic area has to be of a 17 different material so as to differentiate the designs. Want to be able to distinguish what is 18 historic and what is not. Related to the fencing the intent is to provide for some type of 19 security without disrupting the historic component of the Sun House. Sheet L7.04 20 represents the fence elevations. 21 • Referred to sheet L6.00 and talked about the parking situation. The drive isles for the 22 parking lot have been reoriented for efficiency purposes and explained the design. 23 Everything new with regard to the parking lot is permeable. Demonstrated the use and 24 location of bioswales/landscaping and how the drainage and retention for the parking lot 25 work. 26 • Sheet C1.05 represents the detail of the drainage as it concerns planter/swale/rain 27 garden/walking path areas. Sheet C1.02 represents the proposed grading and drainage 28 plan. 29 • Explained the area to the south of the site has been identified as a separate project, 30 which is called the `South Community.' Explained how the pathway connections would 31 work for the Museum Project. Addressed the museum parcels and the proposed senior 32 housing site to the south. Noted it would be difficult to put a trail entirely on the Grace 33 Hudson property due to the location of the redwood trees along the south property line. 34 Instead the plans show a pathway that meanders on and off both properties. The intent is 35 for the pathway to connect the Museum campus and senior housing project. In order to 36 do this, the fence between the properties would need to be taken down. 37 • Confirmed the existing residential house will be removed when the senior housing project 38 comes to fruition. Signage in this area will be placed where appropriate. 39 • Referred to sheet L7.05 and explained a separate entrance was created without having 40 to go through the Museum and this is what the gate on the right of the plans is about. The 41 gate on the left was originally construed as the main entrance into the garden area, but 42 the design has changed so that the entry into the garden area is directly from the interior 43 of the Museum area (sheet A2.03). Intent is to have a separate entrance/gateway into the 44 education garden, so people can flow easily from the parking into the garden directly, 45 particularly for special events without having to go through the Museum entrance. 46 • Confirmed the side courtyard fencing will be removed and is unnecessary since the main 47 entrance concept has been changed. Live plantings rather than a fence will provide the 48 separation to the side courtyard. 49 • Related to the bump-out question, the boardwalk area where one would walk out from 50 what is now the existing conference room has been enlarged. The intent is to provide 51 sufficient room for exhibits. A person would be able to come from the Museum and 52 conference hall where exhibits are displayed and onto a deck area and explained how 53 this would work more effectively. This would also allow for a straight line shot into the 54 garden area. Would be able to see the garden area from the reception desk. Design Review Board November 13, 2014 Page 4 1 • Related to the main public meeting room for the Museum, the City Conference Center 2 now takes care of all meeting room scheduling/renting for public facilities so from a 3 museum perspective the space can be used for events if the space is open on the 4 calendar and not rented. The conference room was space that was reserved for museum 5 use. We have asked the City if the Museum could be in control of its own scheduling for 6 use of the conference room rather than the City Conference Center so the Museum can 7 reserve the use of the facility for Museum board meetings, etc. However, noted for 8 purposes of the Museum renovation project and because the conference room is a 9 triangular shape, it is possible part of this space can be designated for Museum use only 10 and could accommodate eight people. The City will make the final decision. 11 • Discussion about access to the restrooms and how this works with the renovation and 12 associated changes. The intent is to make certain the different project elements are 13 connected. 14 • What is envisioned in terms of access/pathways and pedestrian/vehicle circulation on the 15 Museum site is to not only provide the necessary connections but make it easier to 16 navigate on-site in a safe and effective manner and explained the process of how access 17 would work in the driveway area in front of the Museum. 18 • Related to classroom/office space, found if different groups are doing tours/ 19 seminars/workshops when these groups are talking at the same time it is very distracting. 20 For this reason, designed the front area so it is possible for groups to start a tour in 21 different areas. One of the Project elements of particular importance is to create an 22 `environmental literacy' and/or nature education area along with the cultural education. A 23 component of the environmental literacy program is to increase the redwood tree 24 plantings on the site where there are other redwood trees. This will also feature a 25 pedestrian path. In this way, people can learn about Redwood trees, walk through the 26 wetlands and navigate back through the Pomo plant area. These areas will feature 27 exhibits. There are plans to develop the very narrow space behind the Museum and use 28 it in an interesting/interpretive way also having a pedestrian connection to the overall 29 Museum campus. The objective is to have a `working circuiY of elements having a 30 connection throughout the campus. 31 • Confirmed the working circuit is essentially a loop having gates where the elements may 32 not be open to the public at all times and where these elements would close down when 33 the museum staff is gone. 34 • Acknowledged consideration has been given to possibly expanding the Museum site to 35 include land at the rear of the Museum, but this has not been workable at this juncture. 36 37 Sherri Smith-Ferri: 38 • With the proposed plans for the construction of the nature education project, it will be 39 more convenient having the Museum more accessible to the public for possibly longer 40 periods of time unlike how it has been functioning particularly with the negative activity 41 that has occurred in the Museum park for a very long time. 42 43 Member Nicholson: 44 • Provided the DRB with a copy of his recommendations for the project and comments 45 (attachment 1). 46 • Sees the main issue with the Project is that the whole plan centers around the security 47 issue. Is of the opinion this is not the most community-based approach to take and is 48 concerned with urban boundary and the aesthetic meaning and/or symbolism expressed 49 in the surrounding fencing, walls and entries. 50 • Part of the appeal of the Hudson property throughout its history particularly when the 51 Hudsons were alive was that it was an open, welcoming destination for Native 52 Americans, Europeans, and essentially for all ethnic groups with the wide-open entry 53 porch and welcoming totem pole and other such features on the house. The feeling he 54 gets now is `keep your hands off this property, don't come in unless we grant you entry' Design Review Board November 13, 2014 Page 5 1 where there is a very strong perimeter definition that does not provide that welcoming 2 ambience. As designed, plans do not provide that procession from the urban streetscape 3 to the park and educational gardens. As for the Museum, it serves as a structure having 4 no real sense of identity being located to the rear of all the other elements. There is 5 currently an unmistakable lack of consideration for the public entrance. There is neither a 6 reference for pedestrians or vehicle traffic announcing a welcoming element in the entry 7 procession, but merely a hole in the perimeter fence for people to find their way to the 8 back door and Museum. 9 • Recommends moving the fence back and integrating it into the landscape thus softening 10 the exterior perimeter of the security system and push some of the garden area out to the 11 sidewalk in order to better connect the urban streetscape with the Museum instead of the 12 surrounding security barrier that greets people at the entrance. 13 • Finds the Hudson house slightly ignored and sees this aspect as the identity of the whole 14 project. The Museum is secondary to the Hudson home. The Hudsons designed and 15 lived in their home in a way they felt comfortable and with expressing themselves to the 16 community. A very good effort was made on their part to uphold this expression. In 17 keeping with the greatly admired design vocabulary created by the Hudsons, recommend 18 creating an appropriate and welcoming entry through the use of trellises with a design 19 that exhibits the spirit of the existing arts and crafts expression or even something more 20 contemporary that has an inherent symbolism, which could include signage, lighting and 21 the mail box. 22 • Again, finds the function of the new perimeter fencing disrespectful. Would like to see 23 fencing that openly welcomes/translates some of the past symbolism of the house. If the 24 fence was brought almost half way back to create a front yard facing the street where the 25 fence somehow pulled back from the perimeter in order to allow the landscaping to 26 extend outward to the streetscape. Would like to make certain what is contained inside 27 the fence blends well with the other elements of the Project so as to provide for one 28 cohesive, welcoming community/campus that is in keeping with what the Hudsons were 29 doing. 30 31 Member Thayer: 32 • Is of the opinion the historic nature of the Sun House does not allow for stepping into the 33 space and creating a new purpose. The lawn area is historic as well as other existing 34 vegetation and trees in the area so to step into this historic space with something new is 35 not allowed because the Sun House is a national historical landmark and there are rules 36 related to historical landscapes. 37 • Noted the grant appropriations do not cover anything for the Sun House. It is already on 38 its own `track' for funding so you cannot move into that space. The grant funding for the 39 current project comes from the State. 40 41 Member Nicholson: 42 • Has worked on historical projects before where additions and invading of said space is 43 allowed. 44 45 Member Thayer: 46 • His point is if a particular space has a purpose, cannot invade the space with something 47 new otherwise it is no longer has a historic purpose. 48 • Acknowledged the fence does `have a different story-line'with a different purpose. 49 50 Member Liden: 51 • It may be the security fence could be pulled back with the split rail fence left in the front. 52 Has a problem with the split rail fence being located too close to the security fence. 53 54 The DRB discussed the perimeter fence and how much space would be appropriate between the 55 new fence and the split rail fence. Design Review Board November 13, 2014 Page 6 1 Ann Baker: 2 • It is has been her experience there is less visual impact having both fences next to one 3 another. Preference would be to have no fence, but unfortunately there are security 4 threats to the building so something has to been done in this regard. 5 • With the security fence behind the split rail fence, you do not see the full six feet of the 6 new fence and only see what is above the split rail fence. Is of the opinion there is less 7 visual impact than when they are separate and there is no issue with what to do with 8 dead space between the fences. 9 • An issue with regard to design is the site layout and the way the Museum is located 10 behind the Sun House. The way to get to the Sun House for tours is by way of the 11 Museum and not from the street. 12 • The intent is to make the security fence as invisible as possible. 13 • Over the years there have been problems with graffiti and other types of issues on the 14 part of the public causing problems to the Sun House. It has been questionable whether 15 or not the house can be saved and this is the reason for the perimeter fencing all around 16 the house. Finds the fence type interesting. 17 18 Member Liden: 19 • When thinking about historical private houses that have become museums particularly on 20 the east coast these structures are fenced and typically done in the architectural style of 21 the house that is being preserved. This is not the case with the Sun House Museum. 22 23 Ann Baker: 24 • Acknowledged the aforementioned comment and noted the problem is the existing fence 25 that is split rail and only three feet in height. This is the dilemma. 26 27 Member Nicholson: 28 • The problem is that the center of focus is the Museum and that the Sun House is 29 accessed via the Museum and finds this to be a problem because it is difficult for the 30 public to identify what is occurring because there is only a very small advisory sign. Is not 31 really supportive of the proposed new signage and is of the opinion the signage could be 32 improved upon immensely and more appropriately announces what is happening on the 33 site. If the signage is all happening at the street level, there is no potential for layering of 34 information about what is occurring on the site as one drives up the Museum driveway. 35 The sense one gets is like driving up to a service center. If the current situation regarding 36 the driveway is not part of the grant budget, make this a phase 2 or 3 project that shows 37 there are plans for improvement. As presented, the driveway element is not well thought 38 out. In fact the entire fenced perimeter area is not well thought out. 39 40 Ann Baker: 41 • Agrees with Member Nicholson regarding the design of the driveway and the sense of 42 like driving up to a service center and acknowledges there is room for improvement. The 43 current situation demonstrates an unmistakable lack of consideration for the public 44 entrance and noted this issue has not yet been resolved. 45 46 Member Thayer: 47 • Related to the driveway and corresponding signage, the property is an institution and not 48 a commercial establishment so the regulations about parking, signage can differ. 49 50 Principal Planner Jordan: 51 • Will review whether or not this type of project requires a sign program and if so would be 52 reviewed as part of the site development permit. 53 54 Ann Baker: Design Review Board November 13, 2014 Page 7 1 • We are in the process of developing signage that works with the other elements of the 2 Project. 3 • Looked into the concept of installing trellises and/or other structure types at the driveway 4 entrance to aesthetically work with the Sun House Museum design features. Trellises 5 and/or possible other design concepts must be developed to handle trucks that use the 6 driveway. There are large exhibit trucks that access the driveway to the Museum. 7 8 Member Nicholson: 9 • The trellis could be an archway design and large enough for trucks to pass through. 10 • Asked about alternative plans with the potential extension of Clay Street, particularly with 11 regard to the public right-of-way and what would happen to the garden in this area? 12 13 Member Thayer: 14 • Is the perimeter fencing around the Sun House part of the grant appropriations? 15 • The perimeter fencing cannot really be done in phases because of the intent to provide 16 protection for the Sun House. 17 • Likes there are new trees around the front entrance and that there is a native iris garden. 18 • Any thought given to chip-sealing of the existing asphalt? It is likely chipped stone is 19 more durable as a paving material than other types. Explained the process using `DG' 20 and concrete and how nice the finished product. 21 • Likes the design concepts for the proposed Project. 22 • Cautioned cannot introduce new landscaping concepts. Existing designated historical 23 landscaping features must remain separate and distinct. 24 25 Ann Baker: 26 • The fence is a component of the grant because it serves to protect the outdoor exhibit 27 space. 28 • Noted the Live Oaks do not need much irrigation so the intent with regard to the 29 surrounding garden was to use plants that require minimal water. 30 • Related to the front entrance/driveway and inner circular planter the intent is to create 31 more of a plaza-like space by removing the curb and feathering out the grade so that it 32 drains properly and provides expansive space for event purposes. 33 • There are plans to renovate the existing concrete but no formal decision has been made 34 whether or not to start completely over. It is likely the existing concrete will be replaced 35 and includes a `basketry pattern' and other design features/patterns as shown on the 36 Landscape material plans, L1.01 and L1.02. 37 38 There was discussion about tree species that are appropriate under a sidewalk and the plan for 39 those existing root systems that are problematic. The Cottonwood trees will be retained and 40 noted there was once a stream that flowed through the area where the Cottonwood trees are 41 located. 42 43 Ann Baker: 44 • There are plans for cut-out planters with small trees in the front of the Museum that will 45 provide shade and offer some `softening effecY along the Museum wall that will arc out 46 and be visually interesting. 47 • Related to sheet L6.00, the front area is to be designed such that the landscaping and 48 other design features will create a `plaza feeling' and be much more welcoming. 49 Demonstrated the location of the pedestrian pathway from the parking lot into the front 50 entrance area. 51 • Parking improvements will be permeable and/or aggregate system providing for a rustic 52 appearance. The parking lot will be no bigger than it is now. 53 • There will likely be some chip-sealing of asphalt giving an aggregate appearance and 54 showed the location. Explained the process and noted a more eco-friendly material is Design Review Board November 13, 2014 Page 8 1 used in place of asphalt that gives a rustic, aggregate look. Talked more about the 2 paving materials that will be used and their design effect. 3 4 Member Hawkes: 5 • Does not have a better solution for the perimeter fencing around the Sun House 6 Museum. 7 8 Ann Baker: 9 • Consideration is still being given to the perimeter fence concept. Would like to have a 10 fence that is beautiful from the street and within the site. The intent is to balance cost, 11 security and other issues related to the fencing. Prioritizing improvements and costs is 12 necessary because there is only so much grant funding. The primary focus has been on 13 external improvements and how best to balance the elements involved with aesthetically 14 pleasing results the community can be proud of. 15 • Museum is aware of Clay Street possibly extending through to Peach Street and 16 improvements associated with the extension, curb, gutter, sidewalk, street trees. So 17 consideration is being given as to what constitutes the public right-of-way, and/or the 18 other potential issues involved with the frontage improvements along the Clay Street 19 project frontage. Related to potential loss of the garden area along Clay Street, noted 20 the property line for the Museum to be further out than where the fence is being shown. 21 The museum team has been talking with Public Works. It is like the `City talking to the 22 City' as to what makes sense about the Museum and the streetscape. The design 23 concept is for the Project to be a pedestrian friendly. Acknowledged there are some very 24 nice trees along Clay Street that we do not want damaged by new sidewalks and/or 25 frontage improvements. The City has just hired an engineering firm to develop a cross- 26 section for Clay Street. The Museum Project team does not have complete survey 27 information for Clay Street. The large Valley Oak on the northern section of the property 28 needs to have a plan because it is an important tree. Talked about other trees in this 29 area of the property and needs to survive. 30 31 Member Hawkes: 32 • Inquired about the design team and who PGA Design is. 33 34 Ann Baker 35 • PGA Design is a landscape architecture firm and instrumental in doing the 36 plans/construction details. This firm drafted the 3D view of the landscape plan and has 37 an expertise in historical landscapes. Discussed the Project design team. 38 39 Member Liden: 40 • The perimeter fence is essential. 41 • Related to the Tea Garden in Golden Gate Park/De Young Museum in San Francisco, 42 noted the garden has a nice feeling and this is attributed to the fact a fence encloses the 43 site. People are aware the fence exists and personally does not find it `a big deal.' 44 • Fences are a big deal in China, particularly in Beijing China. Sites are enclosed with 45 very large fences. 46 • The Museum has not had a fence so this will be new feeling. While there is no real 47 solution to the fencing issue, is of the opinion once the fence exists will present a nice 48 feeling. 49 • Good job done in figuring out the fence issue. Only concern related to the fencing is that 50 the split rail fence is located so close to the perimeter fence. Understands the perimeter 51 fence is a necessity. Is of the opinion the fence issue will play itself out. 52 • The signage for the Project needs work. 53 • Understands the changes related to the conference room with the expansion of the 54 garden area. Design Review Board November 13, 2014 Page 9 1 Member Thayer: 2 • The Tea Garden fence in San Francisco is in keeping with the architecture of the interior, 3 which is not the case for the Museum Project. 4 5 Member Nicholson: 6 • Signage should be integrated into the information architecture that takes people from the 7 street to the Museum and parking area. The signage could be some sort of totem/vertical 8 or multiple vertical element that could be integrated into the front porch of the Sun House. 9 If such a structure cannot invade the historical front lawn area, then it needs to invade the 10 space where the garage is located on the south side. 11 • Signage should be all about `information, architecture and information landscape' 12 expressing the message that needs to be communicated. If signage is well-orchestrated 13 it could be `radically contemporary' without having to exactly match the theme/vocabulary 14 of the Sun House. Signage does not have to be `redwood,' could be stainless/galvanized 15 steel, glass or masonry. Signage is about the aesthetic interpretation and integration of 16 the arts and crafts. 17 18 Senior Planner Jordan: 19 • Referred to sheet D1.01 related to the tree removal plan and asked the DRB to comment 20 on the proposed tree removal. 21 • Related to the perimeter fence, Member Nicholson has been very clear about his 22 concerns. Sounds like the other members are accepting of the fence/wall due to the 23 security concerns and need to protect the exhibits. 24 • It is likely the DRB would like to see a Sign Program for the Project if it is determined 25 signage is part of the Project and such a program developed. 26 27 Member Thayer: 28 • Is fine with losing trees to gain better trees. 29 • Although the American Persimmon is not historic, it is native to the eastern US. Has no 30 problem removing some of the trees that are not historic knowing the new trees proposed 31 will be a better fit and in keeping with the Project goals. 32 • Trees are essentially an `idea' and people plant trees in `bad places' that sometimes have 33 to be taken out and replaced with a better tree species that is a better fit for the area. 34 • The mindset and conservation thereof pertains to how the landscape was used and 35 moving forward to how we interpret those values today with the new landscape ideas as 36 they relate to rainwater harvesting/water infiltration, function of the wall/fence and the like. 37 38 Member Hawkes: 39 • Has no problem `losing a tree for a bigger idea.' 40 41 Member Liden: 42 • Was at the Museum today and standing outside the front door and noted a tree near that 43 area to be very beautiful and asked if this tree is going to be removed? Found the 44 experience of looking at the trees very nice. 45 • Noted the existing sculptures that were donated were damaged. 46 • Is fine with what he observed today and with retaining those trees in front of the Museum. 47 • Understands there was a root problem at the front entrance that is professionally being 48 taken care by removing the tree creating the damage and is fine with this approach. 49 • Would like the Planning Commission to know the DRB talked extensively about the 50 perimeter fence and to make certain the Commission understands the value of the 51 Project and why the wall/fence proposed is necessary. 52 53 Ann Baker: 54 • The tree is a Valley Oak. There are also Walnut trees in the area. Design Review Board November 13, 2014 Page 10 1 • The sculptures will be removed. 2 3 There was discussion about the trees in front of the museum and about the perimeter fence in 4 terms of placement and aesthetics. 5 6 Member Nicholson: 7 • Is fine with the tree removal plan. The removal and new planting proposal have been 8 done very responsively/professionally. 9 • The City will benefit greatly by the new landscape plan not only with the addition of new 10 trees, but an entire garden to go with them. Is of the opinion the loss of certain trees is 11 actually`a gain.' 12 • Asked about the masonry material product that is being used for the Project. 13 • It may be that signage is not part of the Project at this time. 14 15 Ann Baker: 16 • Referred to attachment 2 of the minutes and talked about the `Watershed Block' and its 17 use for projects. 18 19 M/S Nicholson/Thayer to recommend Planning Commission approve the Grace Hudson Nature 20 Education Project Site Development Permit with: 1) consideration given to the DRB's comments 21 related to signage and the perimeter fence/wall; and 2) with the condition that the updated 22 signage/sign program return to the DRB for review and approval. Motion carried (4-0). 23 24 7. MATTERS FROM THE BOARD: 25 26 8. MATTERS FROM STAFF: 27 28 9. SET NEXT MEETING 29 The next regular meeting will be Thursday December 11, 2014. 30 31 10. ADJOURNMENT 32 The meeting adjourned at 5:11 p.m. 33 34 35 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary Design Review Board November 13, 2014 Page 11 � °� 'r ,< . � �/yq � ��q �.\� C.: � pp4 61J 0,*" r� trv Vd � r*�"5 � ,. ' � � � � � � � c� ��^ v ��^ '� _. �'� � .... �. � �F �,i ` �.: � € z � e1' � a� U �' �t o :n :�o � +n �.� o �p ?,� � c "°I � cv � � v ' ' � `ca � � � N � cn � �5, c� t� a-a � c � � � °' ,�:�= � � �' �� s ,., v �n `� ��c�J ��:� � o� � � s' � �:��-�� ° � �� t�a.� °' Cl. � � �� U '� � � � �� o � � � � o.� � N Q cu � cn o� � � oic� o "� �t,� ° o` aU � � � � � � ° � o� � �s '� �_ . � a � � � a� � � o �, x � °°�'� e �� c�''�� c�i c a�i� E°o � �� .�� s°� � � �, � � Q�Q � ° � afa� n� a� � a�i � � S-tsro•� �� L1.1 ' � si � � � cu � � � >,�. '� sa °� p "� � oq � � .s�� rE �c � �� '� a� �p} � °° o >.� � � ° e' u� �u �.� ca � v` g.a� � cu �;�� .,. Q �,� a p � Ty �� , �, � oQ o7� y � � � �-Q t� .� � � _' � � � � � c i� � o.�� -� o�o� � � � in v a'°''� � � � � ° , °°°a � � � � � �� n zs.N ��,s� � cU v� � o � m -� oU as � � o � � x � a� �•�, � � �� N � � a� U r � � � �a� ;� �� w �r o °' � � � � °� °' c� cn °o � � o„ �, . o � o o � � ofy- � �'-'� a�i �' �' `� c�� a�i °c°' �� o 'U-� o� �u � � � � � �� a� � � �- U a� � �F" o �,�° � mt�zc� �s� �c�z� � � -� �� N � �•° � �as � c�i � °' � � °-tucv a+ � � o� °.°' � � u� a� � �o � � U � � -� � c�6 � � p o �� o z� > �� cn � �° � c o�i� � `� � � � � �, �� °' '� ° °� o �" '� ° � � � C`� Yc`�icro a��r �n � �-� c�a ar� �;v_ `�-� � �o'°� �- Ua�ni � u' �� -s U �- c o � � ,- � :� a� �? I— ,t� cv c'� o � �y m `�"-o � ar c , � lll 't3 Ca .� (U `p �v ,�-a,._ � U o �� ¢��51 C �O �-' -,,�,, � �� U �C � tt1 �� 'r"v'� .� �� cNjt��p � � +-�'.� :Q�3� � L�.2� O �. � ��.�. �. �� '� C ' :� �. �� } � �,� � a u�. i � � ��. � �� :O t[S �� 4�i Q.� L�t$ � U O Q �� '�S� Q � �Z7 �q.5 �� N ��. _ Z c� o. _ � c� F-- -es :� � a ra..�� s�.� .._ ca cn-� �-- �s .� a a r � Y d--� a+i- f n� V . � ` � .��,�..e. ld< /"'Y �yy � � �' � i 6.4 ! �� U ; 4+ � � �'� � �4 �� . ,�° �.. ` � � � t�. ��. f f � � t � �,, a� �°�� w '� � ct> � � � � � � y `„�� ' � � � � _ � � � ' ' ,� =�x � � � , � � � � �'�, � z � C � � � �'"� N�t+-� � ��k" �1 � S � � � � � '�� } '� �.� �� ll3 /n n �.,/ .:r' � ,�� •,'� X �� • ; � � � � �` � "� � ��.t „ ��'� �'e� � �� k � � t'' �, � � � 7 � x } es M �� i � ', � ; � $�"��f 1 # � 'e a^ � , :,t""_, � ' � ' � �:� �$ 1 � " ?�� 4,� �� -�" �� . �� :y, �. �� > �� s,, ��t s�� >� � � �( � .� ,� � r� � �� ° ' - � "' ��;i ,�uY. �, ' � � � ��^� � � �� ,� �.�,�� , , ,�� _ ��x ��°_' �� .�c��. � � �. > � � c� � -� .� � � � � � �� ua � � � � � � .� � u� � � �' � °'� o �� '` �' � `� �3 =,� ';� � �� ^ �� ,, � ,�;� �:$ � c� ��' (CS � _� � � ��. .:�� "�' , 'i � � � ".; �'��`a� �` �;' ��r�� x ��'�,��t � ��'' ` ;;,. F �'��. <. kti ��r�?;,,� �� .,} �_v.� �, � j�i�� R�S�yV'�P��ij ��, F r s a�a � �� Sd� y ,�'." >. a� i�e;� �? " "�"«�a � z��k,�ar' t "4 k$ �,�� :�"'� t C"" � Sr�� v�'��#�`.? `� v��;,�� : y � . � � �4 ' ti�"�� , a �:t y� 'z� � €_ � � � � �k � � �� y �� t� �� ¢, �-ha�-� � ��am, .r r�� j��a,��q�q;��,��i�� II e t ;..' �a !� ��e��•�5 ��4 �;;; i ;� �;: , �� p w ,� �r� ��e t � �'S � , � { , , m�' �� i� � z �, �',',�"�. ' a t^ k a y i f �,f. ��' `"� �+�y �� m� � � r �j� �� i fi �� i� I �� "� � �� t �i � � ��,' ��a� a� �.� ��,,., .I. �, I �� ``. � � �� . :`�e �� . ..,� .... s , ... .� . . �;`� . . , . ..%:,��4.. ,�.� � { � � I �?��IP',YI"jliq ;+��` "*, � � � s; � �i � # z � . i tll � b�� '� 4r � .,�., � �� " y�k�°� a��q� �� r�~�"� . � � � ' � � � � � ,r � �� •.� .� � ``��. ` �' ` , sP � � '� �� +:,, a .w. ��'�� , a� � �,,, �s� ,tRk �,��,`r�,�, ��.. � �"� : � ` ' � .. ,,, „�,u,� � qa ti ,�, °� °�' '� n.tist *� � °� y} ��; � .4�"'�° t ��. {� ��,+ �c,�` b�"�t a�38�!,c ! 1w �^ .� M # �" � � � 1�k � �`� � � � A �'`t43� z?R�`l�'". r, � � � 6 � � ` n �' S`k ,� i �� . � � � , � ��. S . ' .e (� � � �,;' ��+$ t� � ;' ;�� ,,� e� � � `�h,. t� ..,�.. �r� '��. � �Y��.. �� er"~ � �� r�� ; � 4��,��y\'�°�'� i.� '°� :�. � �!��', ..b.k�'m&.., . .L}�` �� ... ��:��V�F:.: . � , t i vr � � f� 4'i�„�„�,y � �� . ., . � ��$ ',�^ - 4 �ks;_: �,': �...,� ',��, x,.x�. .'.+ ."�„„rygy�`... . . . . . . . .,. ... . �'.. . ............ . .:. i. . . ................ .. . . ...._. ..... ..... ... . . ,. .. ... .. . ............... . ........... ... . ... . . . . 4. dk-: � �.: r �a �. , � a� �- � � ��. � � ` :� �'. � � � �a�� , '�� c� ,,, � ,- ��_ , :� �� -0 ;� + �x � ,, �� 'n� � ��t�; .,r.>..� �,;, �, � #�, �� t�� ,� ,� �ut � ;. i r #� ,...: y.,, 3' �- ' �� . . a.u. � t>� �� S t - �I I�� ii �I ��I I I 'i�i nu�. .,,Y � , j� II I r V �i �L } „ h; � 4 �� 4� _ ��k�� 3 � �`��t{'� �� ' _��# ,�� rt ��, `� , X ' �� t :'�� ' .z � mr�. �' �_�e �- i�,q . �i� �r � , "� �� , �`,+�a�,.,: � ��.,. ��, i . � ��:� ��` " s� ��'�47�;s : �n�..:; - C,� ,, � " � "" z� � , � ;�� $ �s � � Y'u ��I�,r � �i�„ ��,v, �� +�ry�� ,� ,�t� ��,,� ;r, .�a..M �� , � �� a� � � t � ��gz�a�'a=' � � � � �; �' 3=r�� "��« t'x:, ' � �� .. t a ca :� �,:. � � � �� c� :� � e:, d� c� _� �� . � � � �� _ _ -: �. . ,;� , e�.�'€C�C;�fY'1��1� �' � �� ... t ��v�,a � � �r �� t't t� rr . � kut5�"'�k{1 . � ��'��j�+ . kt . ��%`'°'�4,''s��} . �. � A � t , r,,< - �7,� c x i� � ` "�` � "��'��` t �3�`�� ,k`"�};�'��.��" � . " } � > `, s� ��4�� ,�� ' +, G��d > i t ��f��a�� ; ,. � . . ��`$� ¢ s� �4 ts �.e;` #� s�� y 4 �3� a1 .. .. ....... ........ . ..... �r� � �� . � � �r�k 4 � � '" - '� �.7 ; Y L � .. �,; � � � � �� , . ''�r`r�.� ��r .. �p� 4 4`� .'. ,�' � � I�"��' . . �j ' ' ��$ � �@� �'^�,�� te�,'�d� '�Y� : . '� �x >>`-. . . . . .. . . �. , o, <. �,, t� xt,m.:r .. ;,, ,. .»: . '� �:�z�� s�� '� . �� . . . � . . > ` +�Y.�#�.:� '�t t^, ,� ,�'.�c �t��, .. �y i � . �� 5� s,..._� , �r t:}�r , �t„ � .,5 0� �k��i t a ..� �,� .r . �. ' ` .. . ... � r.satro � f �'.�, . : ' . � kiY.. _ .✓ � . . intrc�ducing Wafiershed Block . ." . Ber�efiits + Features . _ ��._�� .* ,` Wa#ershed B(ock is a beautiful;sustainable; S � • Qualifies for LEED points and resilient a(ternative to conventional � • Beautifu(appearance � concrete masanry block.Watershed Blocks � Resitient design � are praduced fram a b(end af naturatty • Smatt carbon footprint � occurring and recycted aggregates,clay • High therma(mass � minerals,ardinary cement,and pozzo(anic • Natural materiats binders.(7ur praprietary process creates • Law maintenance+long service life � durabte structurat masonry blocks that reflect • Unique blend of technology+tradition � fihe character of regionat sails: � Technicat SpecifiicafiiQns � C — ---- C.I�VICUC�I ITI�II�C�I A�VC�I��CC�C��S Dimensions 4 x 8 x 16°,6 x 8 x 16",H x 8 x 16' Bondheam btocks avail.6'+8'high � � �BTYtC'11t IS E'n41`g�/If1t2f1SIV@�Ytd C8U5e5 7.°� Densiry, 115 to 1251bsIft3 � of gioba!CU2:C�ur specia(manufacturing � pi"OCeSS USeS�OCaI�y SOlIYC2CI aggY2�ate Weight per block Approx.�0 tbs for 8"btock j �O a�tdifl t{1(,'StY@Y1C��E"1 dt1C�C�UYabill�{Of Compressfve strength >1900 psi(C90-13comptiant) � convention�t concrete blocks'with less than �; f f'ta�f the C�l'Y12C1f,Y2l"�UCIY1g 21'Y1�30d1ed 2tl2Y�Y Max water absorption <i5 pcf iC90-13 tompiiant) S ` by 50-651. x Linear shrinkage ' <0.10% � Textur� + Cotar .,. �. ' ' .;,°: Wet dry durabiliry <5%weight Ioss . ,. — �.��_ �.� sWatershed Blocks express th'e color palette ; Therrnaiconduclivity; 0.81—0":93 Whn°C y and rnateriat compasition of local soils that< f VaY�C2�lOt1 f3�(Y2g10C1.(ildlVlC�Ua�pt'Of�UC�lOII Acoustical reductiorr 40-50 d6(40 cm wall 500Hz) � ° express the unique geotogicaFattributes of �OCd�'Sit@5. Specif(cation' Atternate Materials ; 11 Basatt Road-N�pa,Californi�-94558 www.watershedrnaterials.com t707)224-2532 � e • � . • � � � � �. _ �� BLUCK SELE��CTION GUIDE �� `�`�� . , �,� �s�"� � ��_� � �� .. � � � Standard Block Neights- g„ 6" q,, 1 u = �� ;,�,�� , �� ,�w � }�,<{��}��A�.t�.��ads s 4 x{ :�. � . � 8 , � ';v�i��' {�'`�� `� ` '� ,� ,��`��v� �?`^� ? ��s' �� ti t�t� a ��, �� °�� >°_� ,.r��,�= .. '� .� : t��?t��t�t �:'.'�� .,. P��*� ,.�.:'�� t:�#� .'�. a.�` '^i4�. `� 'a � :.�. � : r; �,,.> � � ��sa�t�� F . � r if r . . ��°5�s�a}`E��' � +ri��.,, g f �. � ;a*, a '�q tx�,`� �� r�,. Doubte Open-Ended Bond Beam Btock Heights-8'; 6" �� *��£�Y �J . . �t 1t , , J�Yi. �:'".+{�,� � . ��^y.a8�i `3 � f ��t ' � . v'J'i!�fY 4 U7'tY 3 # � �� ; a��t��?� � �� '��>�' r� � �; �_,�� , ��= �� r �_ ,- �� . �t,. � y,: , „� � � � � � � � �� ,,r ,t, �� Sample Btock Colors i � � <`i�'y�;l�� ;��,_ �r;;' "Rk�,"��h �� r °C!Nl!` � u � � ��*'`'r ��rr��,��t y ��1�,"4,r"z`�c`r. �}, r ?,y•s ��e � . .. #�'� ��a� ia��,�"�� - ;. � �� .� � � � � e c�'Y� e.,�.,�, .�.�'�'e�". ��t� �� i � f� � �y4 S��£��"��.,�?� �_� �� 5 ��, . }�a�.. �, Y % , S ` � # � � � � ... . . .... � xj� � � a� s � �'� . 0��v�.+� �, S # . � � � � � �� ,... , ' "� . �,t . 'k�"�..=-� � .. . � � � . . . .. . .. . . . . . ... . .. . i � � � ? *additiona!biock shapes and colors avaitable upon request: i 11 Basatt Road - Napa, California - 94558 www:watershedmaterials.cam (707} 224-2532 ��ty � u�iah City of Ukiah, CA Design Review Board 1 2 MINUTES 3 4 Regular Meeting December 11, 2014 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 Hise, Vice Chair Tom Liden, Nick Thayer, 11 Alan Nicholson, Howie Hawkes 12 13 Absent: 14 15 Staff Present: Charley Stump, Planning Director(present only 16 for agenda items 6C and 6D) 17 Michelle Johnson, Assistant Planner 18 Trent Taylor, Support Services Captain 19 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary 20 21 Others present: Robert Palfox 22 Richard Ruff 23 Jason Howard 24 Judy Howard 25 Nohemi Sanchez 26 Francisco Sanchez 27 Haide Sanchez 28 Larry Mitchell 29 30 3. CORRESPONDENCE: 31 32 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes from the November 13, 2014 meeting will be 33 available for review at the January 8, 2015 meeting. 34 35 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS 36 37 The DRB is required by the City Code to review and make a recommendation on all Site 38 Development Permit applications. 39 40 6. NEW BUSINESS: 41 6A. Shag Salon Site Development Permit, 633 South Main Street (File No. 620): Review 42 and recommendation to the Zoning Administrator on a Site Development Permit for 43 modifications to the building facade located at 633 South Main Street, APN 002-302-25. 44 45 Michelle Johnson: 46 • The applicants will present the Project and provide a project description concerning the 47 proposed modifications to the existing facade. 48 49 Jason Howard, applicant: 50 • Has purchased the former Computer Scene building with the intent to convert it to a hair 51 salon with a beauty supply retail component. The business currently operates in the Design Review Board December 11, 2014 Page 1 1 Airport Industrial Park (AIP) and is moving the business to the new location. Is hopeful 2 the new location will be better for business. 3 • Not making significant changes to the existing building. 4 • Provided a colors and materials board. 5 • The existing facade is very unattractive and this is the reason for the improvements. 6 • Explained in detail the proposed improvements and application thereof as provided for on 7 the site plans developed for the Project. 8 9 Member Nicholson: 10 • Asked about the intent of the existing exterior lighting? 11 • Project is a great solution. 12 • The 1x4-foot wood trim seems a little incongruous. 13 • Will the stone wrap the sides of the building? 14 • Asked about the proposed color palate. 15 • Asked about the awning color? 16 17 Member Hawkes: 18 • Requested clarification whether or not the facade modifications triggered the parking lot 19 improvements or is the intent just to change the configuration of the parking lot. 20 • Asked about the maximum number of persons that would likely be on the site at one 21 time? 22 23 Member Thayer: 24 • Will the existing tree in the parking lot be removed to reconfigure the parking lot? 25 26 Jason Howard: 27 • While a steel awning is proposed as part of the Project, the existing exterior lights will 28 remain and used primarily for security purposes at night. The lights will be moderately lit. 29 • The trim is existing and explained what the previous owner did to `spruce' up the 30 appearance of this cinder-block building by providing some architectural accents. 31 • The plan is to 1) Remove the shingled facade on the front of the building and replace 32 with painted stucco to match; 2) Install tile on the lower 7 feet of the front facade; 3) 33 Install new windows that extend to ground level within the existing width of the opening 34 on the facade; 4) Install new double doors; 5) Install 3 new 6-foot awnings that are 35 stitched together to appear as one 18-foot awning; 6) Install the existing `Shag' sign 36 above the awnings. 37 • The stone will be placed on the face of the building and extend around to the edges of 38 the building. 39 • The color theme will feature a light cream for the base of the building and a brown tone 40 for the trim. 41 • The awning will be black as will the channel lettering for the sign so the Project will 42 feature some black accents. Essentially the building will be creamy color stucco, brown 43 trim with black accents and stone in the front to complement the creamy color stucco. 44 45 Judy Howard: 46 • Based on the square footage of the building, the Project is one parking space short. 47 • The employees will not be able to park on site and will likely park across the street so 48 customers can use the parking lot. 49 50 Jason Howard: 51 • The existing ADA parking space is not compliant with City parking regulations so the 52 parking lot had to be reconfigured and to compensate for the one parking space the 53 Project is short bicycle parking will be added as there is no room in the parking lot to add 54 another space. Demonstrated the location of the ADA parking stall. Design Review Board December 11, 2014 Page 2 1 • Typically there are approximately five or six persons on the site at a time for the salon 2 and retail uses. There are only four salon stations. 3 • It is doubtful anyone will use the bicycle rack. The bike rack is visible from inside the 4 building. 5 • The problem with the tree in the parking lot is that it is `messy.' As such, would like to 6 remove and replace with a tree species that is not as messy. 7 8 Member Thayer: 9 • The Strawberry tree that is on the property or next door is worse in terms of creating a 10 `mess.' 11 • Recommends replacement of the existing parking lot tree for a deciduous tree that is not 12 as messy having a single trunk so the sign is not blocked. Further recommends using 13 the City street tree requirement list. A benefit is there are no overhead utility wires to 14 interfere with the tree. 15 16 Judy Howard: 17 • Suggested the replacement tree be a Maple. 18 19 Member Thayer: 20 • Okay with a Maple tree. Select a species that will provide some shade on the west 21 elevation. Removal of the tree in the parking lot will allow for reworking and striping of the 22 parking spaces. 23 • Is of the opinion the bike rack is not sturdy enough and recommends implementing a 24 type/make that is durable and can be anchored securely. 25 • Recommends paving the parking lot effectively so that it will not have to be resurfaced for 26 six or seven years. 27 • Likes the Project. 28 29 Member Liden: 30 • Appreciates the site plans and noted them to be well crafted. 31 • Related to the choice of stone asked if the intent was to make it architecturally 32 correspond with the stone on the building down the street. It may be that a different 33 stone should be used. 34 • When initially looking at the site plans thought tile was going to be used in place of the 35 stone. Is of the opinion tile would be very appropriate. 36 • In the absence of a cornice, which is likely acceptable and whether or not stone or tile is 37 used, attention needs to be paid to the detail of the trim on top of the building after the 38 stone or tile is applied and the awning is up. Again, the detail of the trim is related to 39 whether stone or tile is used. Using the existing metal cap would be fine. 40 • The proposed Project is definitely an improvement. 41 42 Chair Hise: 43 • It may be a parapet cap is necessary. 44 • Recommends adding an ADA-related sign at the entrance of the parking lot. 45 46 Jason Howard: 47 • Clarified the type of stone is not the same and explained how so. 48 • Related to the detail of the trim, the existing metal cap will be used. 49 50 M/S Nicholson/Hawkes to recommend Zoning Administrator approval of Shag Salon Site 51 Development Permit File No. 620 as submitted taking into consideration comments made by DRB 52 above and make certain the City Building Official plan checks the Project for compliance with 53 ADA/parking lot requirements. 54 Design Review Board December 11, 2014 Page 3 1 There was discussion about: 2 • The proposed doors and the type of handles in terms of accessibility for wheelchairs. 3 • Whether or not restrooms are ADA compliant. 4 5 Jason Howard confirmed the bathrooms are ADA compliant. 6 7 Motion carried (5-0). 8 9 6B. 499 North State Street Development Permit (File No. 598): Review and 10 recommendation to the Zoning Administrator on a Site Development Permit for an 11 addition, parking lot modifications, and landscaping at 499 North State Street, APN 002- 12 152-07. 13 14 Assistant Planner Johnson: 15 • Presented the ProjecUproject description and noted some improvements include an 16 addition to the existing building, provide code compliant parking stalls and drive aisles, 17 create a pedestrian path of travel, addition of more trees on Norton Street, repair the 18 existing irrigation system and add landscaping, etc. 19 • The new addition will architecturally match the existing paint on the facade. 20 • The intent is to replace the exterior lighting, particularly the existing floodlights to include 21 lights that are shielded and downcast; However, no formal lighting plan has been 22 proposed at this time. 23 • The existing freestanding sign will remain and there will be a new logo for the new 24 business. A copy of the new logo is provided for in the staff report. 25 26 Member Thayer: 27 • Has the City Public Works reviewed the most recent version of the site plans? 28 • Requested clarification about the proposed addition to the building as shown on the site 29 plans. 30 • Related to the `No Parking' area asked about the plans in this regard. Also, asked about 31 repaving/restriping of the parking lot. 32 • Asked about the pedestrian pathway and how this will work. 33 • Asked about the prefabricated umbrellas. Preference would be Palm trees in this area. 34 • Would like to make certain a landscape plan is part of the Project. 35 • Related to the street trees on Norton Street would like to see something larger because 36 there are no overhead utilities in this location. 37 • Related to the street trees in front of the building on State Street can be a much larger 38 tree species and recommends Sycamore trees. 39 • Acknowledged the problem with the existing Purple Leaf Plum street trees on Norton 40 Street is that they do get hit and for this reason and other reasons this tree species 41 should not be on the City Required Street Tree list. 42 • To connect with the restaurant theme recommends including a Palm tree(s) as part of the 43 landscape plan. 44 • Make certain there is a landscape plan for the Project in place. 45 46 Assistant Planner Johnson: 47 • Confirmed the aforementioned inquiry that a landscape plan is required. 48 49 Lawrence Mitchell, Architect, Representative for Applicants: 50 • Related to the color palate for the Project, Planning staff has indicated any color changes 51 need to be proposed now or come back to the DRB for review later. Initially the intent 52 was for the color scheme for the building to remain the same, but the applicants would 53 like to change the color scheme. No color sample board is available at this time. 54 • Explained the aspects for the proposed addition. Design Review Board December 11, 2014 Page 4 1 • Confirmed the designated `No Parking' area will remain because of the drive aisle. As 2 shown on the site plans commented on how the parking lot would function relative to 3 vehicular circulation/path of travel, etc. 4 • Repairs will be made to the parking lot. 5 • City Code requires a pedestrian pathway from the public right-of-way/sidewalk to the 6 primary entrance of the building. Explained how the pathway would function and noted 7 the driveway width will be reduced as discussed with Public Works. 8 • Related to the street trees on State Street, there is no parking lane so anything that 9 overhangs the sidewalk will get hit. 10 11 Chair Hise: 12 • Fine with moving forward on a recommendation concerning the design aspects of the 13 Project and review the color palate for the building another time. 14 • Asked what is being proposed for ADA parking and noted the site plans do not show the 15 striping of the corresponding loading areas and there is no associated signage. 16 • Supports the DRB review the color palate for the building. 17 • Asked if a landscape plan is required? 18 19 Member Liden: 20 • Is interested in seeing the proposed color scheme.Would be nice to see a `fresh' color on 21 the building. 22 • Noted some of the shakes are starting to fall off the exterior walls of the building and 23 asked what measures will be taken in this regard? 24 • Asked about plans concerning the monument sign and logo for the restaurant. 25 26 Member Nicholson: 27 • Looking at the site from State Street finds it `barren' in appearance. 28 • While he has no landscape formal recommendations per se, there is room behind the 29 monument sign for some landscaping that could include a Palm tree theme. As such, can 30 see an opportunity for a small Palm tree in this area or even a multi-trunk Palm behind 31 the sign that would help shade the seating area and something similar can also be done 32 on the corner of the site to create more continuity to what is occurring on the site. Noted 33 Palm trees come in different sizes so this may be a possibility. This option would give the 34 site `more substance' in this area. 35 • Related to the restroom situation, if the existing curb remains this is not really ADA 36 compliant. 37 • Is fine with Sycamore trees as street trees in the front of the site. 38 • Likes the Project. 39 40 Member Hawkes: 41 • Is the business to be a seafood restaurant? 42 • Is fine with the Project and the suggestions made by the DRB. 43 44 Lawrence Mitchell: 45 • Related to ADA signage in the parking lot, there would be a van accessible and other 46 required signage posted in the designated handicap parking area. Consulted with the City 47 Building Official regarding the required standard size for the handicapped space that is 48 van accessible. 49 • Exterior wall repairs are necessary before the building is painted and to accommodate an 50 awning. 51 • Referred to attachment 1 of the staff report (project description) that talks about the 52 signage. The existing 10 x 4-foot freestanding sign will be refaced with new faces and 53 graphics and referred to the logo design that will accompany this sign. 54 • Confirmed the restaurant is a seafood restaurant. Design Review Board December 11, 2014 Page 5 1 • Related to the raised curb and since runoff flows away from the building in terms of 2 drainage the intent is to work the surface so it is level with the walking surface. 3 4 Associate Planner Johnson: 5 • Confirmed a landscape plan is required. 6 7 Member Thayer: 8 • Will the DRB review any interior improvements? 9 10 Associate Planner Johnson: 11 • Would defer the aforementioned question to Planning Director Stump, but this would be a 12 conflict because the Planning Director is also the Zoning Administrator and this Project 13 requires approval from the Zoning Administrator. However, it was noted the DRB can 14 continue review of the project and move forward accordingly and review the color palate 15 and landscaping plan at the next regular meeting in January. 16 17 Member Nicholson would like clarification regarding the tree that is growing under the fence on 18 the site. 19 20 Chair Hise: The aforementioned tree can be addressed in the landscape plan. 21 22 Member Thayer: The tree is invasive and could be left or removed. 23 24 M/S Liden/Hawkes to recommend Zoning Administrator approval of 499 North State Site 25 Development Permit based on the Project, as presented with review and recommendation of the 26 color palate for the building and landscaping plan at the regular January DRB meeting and the 27 tree growing under the fence can be addressed in the landscape plan. Motion carried (5-0). 28 29 Planning Director Stump: 30 • The three new City Councilmembers will be appointing three new DRB members and 31 three new Planning Commissioners. 32 33 6C. Mutt Hut Outdoor Dining Site Development Permit, 732 South State Street (File No. 34 623): Review and recommendation to the Planning Commission on a Site Development 35 Permit for outdoor dining in front of (South State Street) the Mutt Hut restaurant located 36 at 732 South State Street, APN 003-031-42. This project also requires Planning 37 Commission approval of a Use Permit. 38 39 Richard Ruff, Architect and applicant representative: 40 • The Project essentially involves an outdoor dining deck with seating for 34 persons in 41 front of the existing Mutt Hut building that is specifically addressed in the project 42 description of the staff report. 43 • The Mutt Hut floor elevation is about a 1.7 feet higher than the sidewalk where a ramp is 44 involved as part of the Project. 45 • The deck will be concrete with stem walls and a slab. 46 • The handrails and railing will be metal. 47 • The roof will be a `membrane, porous down' roof. 48 • The drainage will be via gutters. A drainage plan will be provided although landscaping 49 features will also address runoff/drainage. 50 • Related to landscaping, the site has no room to really provide the required 20°/a 51 landscaping coverage where the applicant will likely seek relief in this regard. 52 • Additional parking is located across the street on Freitas Street and explained how the 53 parking is shared with another business establishment. This particular site does have 54 street trees that can count as part of the 20°/o landscaping coverage requirement. Design Review Board December 11, 2014 Page 6 1 • Attachment 1 of the staff report addresses the project description, landscaping, 2 parking/parking requirements, occupancy, etc. 3 • For some reason, State Street has a large public right-a-way that is not being used and 4 benefits the Mutt Hut for this project and explained how so. 5 • The applicant has recommended the one parking space in front of the restaurant be 6 eliminated for safety reasons particularly for persons making a left turn onto State Street. 7 The City Traffic Engineering Committee (TEC) has reviewed this request with a 8 recommendation to City Council for approval. City Council will make the final 9 determination. 10 • The existing monument sign in front of the restaurant will be removed and not relocated 11 on the site. 12 • Commented on the electrical outlets and/or other utility-related hookups, etc., and 13 location thereof on the site plans. 14 • Explained the other project features the outdoor dining facility will maintain in order 15 accommodate the existing water meter and/or other restaurant systems necessary for its 16 operation that will not be moved. 17 • The sprinkler control valves will be relocated. 18 • Noted the electrical feed to the restaurant comes from the north power pole and proceeds 19 underground from the back of the sidewalk and will run under the outdoor dining deck to 20 the meter, which is located on Freitas Street. The City Electrical Department has directed 21 the applicant on how to proceed with electrical related changes that have occurred as a 22 result of the Project. 23 • Confirmed the proposed outdoor dining establishment is approximately 620 sq. ft. and 24 can accommodate 34 persons and referred to the site plans concerning the design of the 25 seating/floor plan. 26 27 Planning Director Stump: 28 • The Planning Commission has the authority to be flexible with the landscaping. 29 30 Chair Hise: 31 • Asked about the location of the hanging sign on the site plans and asked whether or not 32 the signage complies with the City Sign Ordinance. 33 34 Richard Ruff: 35 • The hanging signs will be located above the deck rail on the north and south ends. 36 Planning staff calculated the signage for the site/project and the signage is compliant with 37 City regulations. 38 39 Member Nicholson: 40 • Acknowledged the roof would be wire-proof inembrane and the structure will be enclosed 41 and asked about the ventilation system. 42 • Referred to site plan sheet S1.0 related to the roof framing and electrical plan. 43 • Noted there is soffit ventilation for the existing roof and asked if this will be covered up 44 with the design of the proposed Project and inquired how the roof will be 'torched down' 45 in connection with the existing roof and still provide for adequate ventilation. 46 • The signage appears to be `generic' and asked about this. Will miss the monument sign 47 that will not be relocated. 48 • Likes the Project. Would like to see more landscaping if it were possible because at this 49 point the landscaping plan is undefined. 50 • Preference would be to retain the parking space in front of the Mutt Hut. While he 51 understands the space may be a danger in some aspects, finds every other left turn 52 scenario in the City to be a potential hazard for persons making a left turn onto State 53 Street and views this as the beauty/routine of urban life. Finds the parking space to be 54 important especially when the restaurant parking lot is full. If the Public Works is of the Design Review Board December 11, 2014 Page 7 1 opinion the space should be eliminated, is fine with this. Is of the opinion the parking 2 space is a convenience for patrons of the restaurant and preference would like to see the 3 parking space retained. 4 • Would like to find a better solution than `Simpson T straps' to hold the frame together and 5 while this approach matches the architecture of the existing building finds the appearance 6 `clunky.' 7 8 Chair Hise: 9 • Related to sheet S1.0 does not see information concerning the insulation. 10 11 Robert Palfox: 12 • Sheet A2.1 addresses insulation. 13 14 Richard Ruff: 15 • The structure will include sufficient insulation so as to keep the heat off the roof and 16 explained the insulation type in more detail. 17 • Related to the issue of ventilation, the proposed project will be 2 inches away from the 18 existing roof so there will be air-space/a separation. 19 • Explained the roofing and how the ventilation system works as shown on the site plans. 20 • The new signage constitutes a `placeholder' for now until the design for the signage has 21 been completed. The sign will likely have an oval shape with the Mutt Hut logo without 22 much language. Everyone knows where the Mutt Hut is located. 23 24 Trent Taylor: 25 • Is a member of the TEC and confirmed the committee has met regarding the parking 26 space in front of the restaurant and recommends City Council approve this request from 27 the applicant. 28 29 There was discussion about fixture types that hold the frame of the structure together in terms of 30 durability and aesthetics. 31 32 Member Thayer: 33 • Referred to sheet A1.1 and requested clarification regarding the return handrail on the 34 upper portion of the ramp and does this come out on the sidewalk side or the interior of 35 the building? Related to the landing area at the bottom of the ramp it appears the hand 36 rail starts on the exterior side and comes around and questioned whether this rail should 37 be placed on the inside. The concern is that `nothing' protrudes into the public right-of- 38 way/sidewalk, including any containers. There should be no objects in the public right-of- 39 way space. The site plan is not clear in this regard and would like to have clarification 40 understanding about this detail. 41 • Is not particularly pleased with the design of the fixture types that hold the frame of the 42 structure but understands the need for a heavier weight material. 43 • Related to the landscaping, the addition of`more is better' than what species are existing. 44 If the landscaping entails the new development taking into consideration the 20°/a 45 landscaping coverage requirement and the difficulty with compliance on the lot in this 46 regard, then it appears the other areas are not addressed on the west side of the 47 building. Preference would be to extend the landscaping to the service entrance on the 48 back side of the lot and extend to wrap around the corner. A lack of landscaping balance 49 on the site would be present if there is new landscaping in some areas and no 50 landscaping in other areas. The point is with regard to landscaping is that the front 51 portion of the site is being addressed leaving the back portion of lot without consideration. 52 It is to the owner's benefit to improve the appearance of the building even though it is the 53 `Mutt HuY' and the owner does not have to. Design Review Board December 11, 2014 Page 8 1 • Related to the species selection, finds some unsuitable aspects such that the sizes of the 2 species are `off' compared to the scale of the Project and recommends the species be 3 reevaluated. 4 • Related the landscaping: 5 o The Rosemary is fine; However, the Coast Rosemary is not hardy in this climate and 6 tends to freeze. 7 o The Manzanita is to large; 8 o While the rose has thorns, species is suitable for its size. 9 • Related to the single street tree to be replaced, requested clarification as to the reason? 10 Questioned the sidewalk is remaining except for those sections where the utilities are 11 being repaired and is he reading this correctly on the site plans? 12 • It may be beneficial to add smaller scale trees inside the property rather than those 13 species that protrude into the sidewalk area and cited areas where this would work. 14 • The site plans indicate plant materials in and around the concrete pad for the grease trap. 15 • Showed location on the site plans where new trees could be planted such that if the 16 overall landscape coverage cannot be meet the required 20% coverage that the trees 17 could make up for some of the deficiency in the landscaping. 18 19 Chair Hise: 20 • The issue is about `length' and this can be directed in the path of travel such that it does 21 not protrude/encroach in the public right-of-way. 22 23 Member Liden: 24 • Asked about the type of wood material for the structure? 25 • Asked about the plans for the railings? 26 27 Robert Palfox: 28 • Talked about the design and color of the fixture material for the frame and why this 29 particular material was selected. 30 • To address the landscaping and/or potential lack thereof, the planting strip in the back of 31 the building is filled with plants. 32 • Related to the planting of smaller trees and areas proposed, noted some areas would not 33 benefit or it is not possible to plant trees such as in the area where there is a concrete 34 pad for the grease-trap and referred to the site plans in this regard. Preference is to have 35 no plant materials in and around the concrete pad for the grease trap. 36 37 Richard Ruff: 38 • Confirmed nothing is being done as it relates to the sidewalk. The only reason the street 39 tree is being replaced is because somehow it was not initially staked up correctly. 40 • The wood for the new structure will likely be stained/painted to match the existing 41 building. 42 • The railings will be powder-coated, black. 43 44 Member Nicholson: 45 • Does the DRB want to further discuss the landscaping and/or are DRB comments made 46 above sufficient? 47 48 Richard Ruff: 49 • Is fine with the landscaping comments. 50 51 Planning Director Stump: 52 • The Planning Commission will review the landscape plan for the Project. 53 Design Review Board December 11, 2014 Page 9 1 M/S Nicholson/Thayer to recommend Planning Commission approval for Mutt Hut Outdoor 2 Dining Site Development Permit, as presented with more focus on the landscaping aspects for 3 possible reconsideration as discussed above. Motion carried (5-0). 4 5 Member Hawkes: 6 • Requested clarification the City of Ukiah has an employee with landscape 7 architecture/design expertise on board. 8 9 Member Thayer: 10 • The City of Ukiah would benefit from having a person with landscape design 11 experience/expertise as staff. 12 13 Planning Director Stump: 14 • Confirmed the City does not presently have an employee with landscape design 15 experience but has in the past and recognizes the importance of having such a person if 16 this were possible. 17 18 6D. AT8�T Site Development Permit for a Wireless Telecommunications Facility, 300 19 Seminary Avenue (Ukiah Civic Center) (File No. 266): Review and recommendation to 20 the Planning Commission on a Site Development Permit for a 105-foot tall Mono-Pole 21 Wireless Telecommunications Facility at the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, 22 APN 002-255-03. This project also requires Planning Commission approval of a Use 23 Permit. 24 25 Assistant Planner Johnson: 26 • The Project applicant was unable to be present due to weather conditions getting to 27 Ukiah. 28 29 Trent Taylor presented the Project: 30 • The proposed Project involves the construction and operation of a wireless 31 telecommunications facility (WTF) designed as a mono-tree that would include the 32 construction/operation of a 105 mono-tree WTF. The Project would utilize the existing 33 equipment enclosure and would run new conduit, fiber, and cables to connect to 34 equipment located in the existing enclosure. 35 • The Project was originally submitted as new antennas added to the existing lattice tower 36 where a structural analysis was prepared for the existing tower. The analysis determined 37 the existing tower could not support additional equipment. As such, the applicant revised 38 the Project to include removing the AT&T antennas on the existing tower and the 39 construction of a new tower designed as a mono-pine. 40 • The Ukiah Police Department manages the existing WTF tower. 41 • Edge Wireless initially installed the existing cell lattice tower with approval of a Major Use 42 Permit from the Ukiah Planning Commission. This tower was necessary in order to 43 upgrade the City's police and fire radio equipment because we have a full public safety 44 answering point here at the City of Ukiah. The City of Ukiah is also a regional dispatch 45 center because Ukiah Police Department also dispatches for Fort Bragg Police 46 Department. 47 • Found an upgrade to the tower was very expensive so a licensing agreement was made 48 with Edge Wireless to assist the City and explained the intricacies of the transaction. 49 Eventually Edge Wireless was bought out and acquired by AT&T, which was really a new 50 singular wireless business and noted this wireless business to be very complex. The area 51 where the tower is located the licensing agreement is now owed by AT&T or more 52 properly referred to as `New Singular Wireless' that subleases to US Cellular so now the 53 City has two cell companies on City equipment. Recently, because of federal regulations 54 the City upgraded its safety equipment with future upgrades to be made over the next 25 55 to 30 years, none of which would ever maximize/compromise the current existing tower Design Review Board December 11, 2014 Page 10 1 service from the public safety perspective. However, it is the cellular matters that keep 2 getting more complicated. US Cellular approached the City last year wanting to go to the 3 next level since it is a very competitive market place. The tower at the City of Ukiah is 4 critical to the Ukiah Valley since it is the only downtown cell tower. 5 • When assessing the existing tower concerning an upgrade it was determined the tower 6 could not support additional equipment and explained the structural limitations in more 7 detail. The City was essentially going be `pushed off' the use of the tower to 8 accommodate cellular use and this could not occur. One option is the tower could be 9 abandoned and given to the City or take the existing tower down and build a new one. 10 The option that was proposed in connection with the City managing the lease was to 11 install another tower. This option would leave the City not co-located on the same tower 12 with cellular providers thus giving the City the opportunity to expand. The new tower 13 would certainly be suitable for City needs for many years/decades to come. With the 14 rapid improvement/advancement of the cellular business and pressure for being 15 competitive in this market place and from the City management perspective of being able 16 to protect the public safety equipment is an issue the City must address relative to 17 capacity and effective function/service. Cellular company vendors offer hiring 18 subcontractors to work on the City tower and this has become a security issue in the 19 past. City public safety equipment is critical such that the system must always function 20 properly without failure of any kind. To effectively manage and protect our interest cost 21 factors are a consideration such that the City must weigh the benefit received from the 22 initial licensing agreement versus the benefit now. No one could predict how use of the 23 tower and value received thereof would play out since the initial licensing agreement was 24 initiated some time ago. Should the project move forward, the City Attorney would then 25 have to renegotiate the City's contractual relationship with the cellular companies. The 26 City just went through this process when new fiber cables etc., were installed and the 27 underground work involve where new rules about access were put in place. 28 • From a public safety and City perspective the benefit to installing a new tower would be 29 the ability to separate public safety from cellular issues all of which are critical to the 30 community. Allowing for effective cellular service for the community is a necessity and 31 with being able to technically keep up with the rest of the nation. 32 33 Member Liden: 34 • Is the proposed new tower a City idea or that of AT&T, a cellular company? 35 • Is there a problem with having another tower that requires security fencing? 36 • Has a problem with the new tower being a tree design. The existing tower is utilitarian in 37 appearance and to make the new tower a tree makes it look like a tourist attraction. 38 • It would likely be cheaper to install a regular utilitarian cell tower rather than a tower 39 having a `tree' design. 40 41 Chair Hise: 42 • Would rather see a utilitarian looking tower than that of a tree design. 43 • His experience with mono-tree towers is that all the equipment on it can be seen anyway. 44 45 Member Nicholson: 46 • Would be nice if AT&T could put a tower on their building instead. 47 • Is fine with the tower being a mono-tree. 48 49 Member Thayer: 50 • A cell tower is a cell tower and should look like one rather than disguising it and making it 51 something it is not. 52 • A tower design as a tree is a way to appease the public who perceives that a cell tower is 53 ugly and is of the opinion a cell tower is fine. We need cell towers for public safety 54 reasons. Design Review Board December 11, 2014 Page 11 1 Howie Hawkes: 2 • Is fine with a regular mono-pole design. 3 4 Trent Taylor: 5 • AT&T originally wanted a mono-pole that would require fencing for security purposes. A 6 mono-tree does not need security fencing because it cannot be climbed without special 7 tools. 8 • Existing site constraints would be problematic with having to provide additional fencing 9 for a second tower. 10 • Will consult with AT&T concerning a change in the design and review how the security 11 fencing would work. It is important for AT&T to move forward quickly on this project 12 because of the need to have good cell service. AT&T will likely propose a mono-pole 13 unlike the existing lattice-type tower that currently exits at the City. A lattice tower cannot 14 support the latest technology. 15 16 Planning Director Stump: 17 • Acknowledged the existing cell tower when proposed was not well received by the public. 18 19 M/S Liden/Thayer to recommend Planning Commission approve an AT&T Site Development 20 Permit for a regular utilitarian WTF mono-pole rather than a mono-tree and/or pole that is a fake 21 tree design. Motion carried (4-0)with Member Nicholson abstaining. 22 23 7. MATTERS FROM THE BOARD: 24 There was discussion about the current condition of the Palace Hotel and the next steps to be 25 taken in the process of renovation. 26 27 8. MATTERS FROM STAFF: 28 29 9. SET NEXT MEETING 30 The next regular meeting will be Thursday January 8, 2015. 31 32 10. ADJOURNMENT 33 The meeting adjourned at 4:52 p.m. 34 35 36 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary Design Review Board December 11, 2014 Page 12 1 ITEM NO. 6A Community Development and Planning Department G�ity of Zl�ah 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 planninq(a�citvofukiah.com (707)463-6203 2 3 DATE: January 8, 2015 4 5 TO: Design Review Board 6 7 FROM: Michelle Johnson, Assistant Planner 8 9 SUBJECT: Request for Review and Recommendation to the Zoning Administrator on a Site 10 Development Permit building Color Palate and Landscaping Plan at 11 499 North State Street, APN 002-152-07 12 File No.: Munis 598 13 14 15 REQUEST 16 17 Staff requests the Design Review Board review the proposed Site Development Permit building 18 Color Palate and Landscaping Plan at 499 North State Street and make a recommendation to 19 the Zoning Administrator. 20 21 PROJECT BACKGROUND 22 23 At the December 11, 2014 Design Review Board meeting the application received from Mitchell 24 Architect, Inc. on behalf of Nohemi Sanchez requesting Zoning Administrator approval of a Site 25 Development Permit to modify the existing building, parking lot and landscaping at 499 South 26 State Street was approved (5-0) with the conditions that a Color Palate for the proposed building 27 fa�ade and proposed Landscaping Plan would be submitted and reviewed by the DRB at the 28 following scheduled meeting. 29 30 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 31 32 The proposed landscape modifications include the following: 33 Material uanti Size Hei ht S acin Blue Fescue 52 3 GAL. 12" 12" Red Yucca 1 3 GAL. 15" 15" Yucca Whipple 3 5 GAL. Granite Boulder 7 6"-24" N/A Gravel Mulch 3" N/A N/A London Plane/Sycamore Tree 2 15 GAL. N/A 34 Restaurant Renovation Site Development Permit 499 North State Street/APN 002-152-07 January 8,2015 Design Review Board Meeting File No.:Munis 598 1 1 The applicant has provided a Color Palate to demonstrate the proposed color scheme 2 (attachment 1) and Landscaping Plan (attachment 2). 3 4 STAFF ANALYSIS 5 6 General Plan: The General Plan land use designation of the parcel is Commercial. This land 7 use designation identifies lands where commerce and business may occur. Commercial lands 8 are more precisely defined through the uses allowed in the individual zoning districts (see 9 Zoning below). 10 11 The project site is located within an area identified in the Community Design element as a 12 second level gateway in the City's General Plan. The General Plan includes the following goals 13 and policies related to gateways: 14 15 ■ Goal CD-7: Improve the appearance of area gateways. 16 ■ Policy CD-7.1: Establish public policy to enhance and improve the appearance of area 17 gateways. 18 19 Projects located on general plan gateways are subject to a higher standard of design since the 20 gateways provide the first impression of the community as one enters and then travels through 21 the main corridors of the City. 22 23 Zoning: The subject property is zoned Community Commercial (C1). The purpose of this zone 24 is to provide a broad range of commercial land use opportunities along the primary 25 transportation corridors within the City. Restaurants are allowed uses in the C1 zoning district. 26 27 Landscaping: The site includes minimal landscaping. The C1 zoning district includes the 28 following landscaping standards: 29 30 ■ Landscaping shall be proportional to the building elevations. 31 32 ■ Landscape plantings shall be those which grow well in Ukiah's climate without extensive 33 irrigation. Native species are strongly encouraged. 34 35 ■ All landscape plantings shall be of sufficient size, health and intensity so that a viable and 36 mature appearance can be attained in a reasonably short amount of time. 37 38 ■ Deciduous trees shall constitute the majority of the trees proposed along the south and west 39 building exposures; nondeciduous street species shall be restricted to areas that do not 40 inhibit solar access. 41 42 ■ Parking lots with 12 or more parking stalls shall have a tree placed between every four(4) 43 parking stalls within a continuous linear planting strip, rather than individual planting wells, 44 unless clearly infeasible. Parking lot trees shall primarily be deciduous species, and shall be 45 designed to provide tree canopy coverage of fifty percent (50%)over all paved areas within 46 10 years of planting. Based upon the design of the parking lot, a reduced number of trees 47 may be approved through the discretionary review process. 48 49 ■ Parking lots shall have a perimeter planting strip with both trees and shrubs. Restaurant Renovation Site Development Permit 499 North State Street/APN 002-152-07 January 8,2015 Design Review Board Meeting File No.:Munis 598 2 1 2 ■ Parking lots with 12 or more parking stalls shall have defined pedestrian sidewalks or marked 3 pedestrian facilities within landscaped areas and/or separated from automobile travel lanes. 4 Based upon the design of the parking lot, and the use that it is serving, relief from this 5 requirement may be approved through the discretionary review process. 6 7 ■ Street trees may be placed on the property proposed for development instead of within the 8 public right of way if the location is approved by the city engineer, based upon safety and 9 maintenance factors. 10 11 ■ All new developments shall include a landscaping coverage of twenty percent(20%)of the 12 gross area of the parcel, unless because of the small size of a parcel, such coverage would 13 be unreasonable. A minimum of fifty percent(50%) of the landscaped area shall be dedicated 14 to live plantings. 15 16 ■ Landscaping plans shall include an automatic irrigation system and lighting plan. 17 18 ■ All required landscaping for commercial development projects shall be adequately maintained 19 in a viable condition. 20 21 Due to the small size of the parcel, it appears that compliance with the landscaping standards is 22 not possible without removing parking spaces which make the Project non-compliant with the 23 parking requirements. The Project site is not located within the boundaries of Parking District 1; 24 therefore, onsite parking is required. The Planning Commission has the authority to grant 25 modifications to the landscaping requirements based on circumstances and constraints unique 26 to the site. 27 28 Design Guidelines. The Project is located within the boundaries of the Downtown Design 29 District; therefore, the Project would be reviewed for compliance with the Downtown Design 30 District Guidelines (attachment 3). 31 32 Site Development Permit: In order to approve a Site Development Permit, the following 33 findings are required to be made and supported by information included as part of the 34 application and public record. As part of its review of the proposed Project, staff requests the 35 DRB also consider the required findings. 36 37 1. The proposal is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the City General 38 Plan. 39 40 2. The location, size, and intensity of the proposed project will not create a hazardous or 41 inconvenient vehicular or pedestrian traffic pattern. 42 43 3. The accessibility of off-street parking areas and the relation of parking areas with respect 44 to traffic on adjacent streets will not create a hazardous or inconvenient condition to 45 adjacent or surrounding uses. 46 47 4. Sufficient landscaped areas have been reserved for purposes of separating or screening 48 the proposed structure(s) from the street and adjoining building sites, and breaking up 49 and screening large expanses of paved areas. Restaurant Renovation Site Development Permit 499 North State Street/APN 002-152-07 January 8,2015 Design Review Board Meeting File No.:Munis 598 3 1 2 5. The proposed development will not restrict or cut out light and air on the property, or on 3 the property in the neighborhood; nor will it hinder the development or use of buildings in 4 the neighborhood, or impair the value thereof. 5 6 6. The improvement of any commercial or industrial structure will not have a substantial 7 detrimental impact on the character or value of an adjacent residential zoning district. 8 9 7. The proposed development will not excessively damage or destroy natural features, 10 including trees, shrubs, creeks, and the natural grade of the site. 11 12 8. There is sufficient variety, creativity, and articulation to the architecture and design of the 13 structure(s) and grounds to avoid monotony and/or a box-like uninteresting external 14 appearance. 15 16 CONCLUSION 17 18 Staff requests the Design Review Board review the proposed project and make a 19 recommendation to the Zoning Administrator. 20 21 ATTACHMENTS 22 23 1. Color Palate date stamped December 29, 2014; 24 2. Landscape Plan date stamped December 29, 2014; 25 3. Design Guidelines Checklist 26 27 28 Restaurant Renovation Site Development Permit 499 North State Street/APN 002-152-07 January 8,2015 Design Review Board Meeting File No.:Munis 598 4 1 ITEM NO. 6B Community Development and Planning Department L�ity of Zlkah 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 planninq c(�.cityofukiah.com (707)463-6203 2 3 DATE: January 8, 2015 4 5 TO: Design Review Board 6 7 FROM: Michelle Johnson, Assistant Planner 8 9 SUBJECT: Request for Review and Recommendation on a Precise Development Plan to 10 allow the construction of three two-story building clusters that will include a total 11 of 42 low income senior housing units, Community Center, and designated open 12 space. 13 517 Main Street, APN 002-281-15, 18, 24, 28, 30 14 City File No.: 646 15 16 17 REQUEST 18 19 Staff requests the Design Review Board review the proposed Precise Development Plan for 20 three two-story building clusters that will include a total of 42 low income senior housing units, 21 Community Center, and designated open space at 517 Main Street and make a 22 recommendation to Planning Commission and City Council. 23 24 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 25 26 An application has been received from Robert Hayes, Architect, on behalf of Petaluma 27 Ecumenical Housing (PEP), a not-for-profit affordable housing developer requesting City 28 Council approval for a General Plan Amendment to designate the site (HDR) high Density 29 Residential and rezoning to (PD) Planned Development, (R-3) High Density Residential and a 3o Precise Development Plan to allow the construction of three two-story building clusters at 517 31 Main Street, APN 002-281-15, 18, 24, 28, 30 (see attachments 1 and 2).The project would 32 include: 33 34 • 42 housing units; 35 • 35 parking spaces; 36 • three building clusters with architectural style consistent with the Sun House; 37 • building roofs that are oriented to the South to maximize solar output; 38 • community center; 39 • open space areas for path to Rail Trail; 40 • walking path on the north property line to encourage connectivity between the Senior 41 Housing Project and the Museum; Sun House Senior Housing Preliminary Application 517 Main Street(APN 002-281-15,18,24,28,30) January 8,2015 Design Review Board Meeting City File No.:646 1 1 • screened parking lots from; 2 • new landscaping 3 4 5 The Design Review Board is required by the City Code to review and make a recommendation on 6 all Precise Development Plans. 7 8 SETTING 9 10 The project is located on the east side of Main Street between Cleveland and Clay Street and 11 Mill and Clay Street west of Main Street. The site is an approximately 1.50 acres a total of five 12 legal parcels. Parcel 1 (002-281-24) existing residential building; Parcel 2 (002-281-18) 13 undeveloped; Parcel 3 (002-281-28) dilapidated tennis court; Parcel 4 (002-281-30) 14 undeveloped and Parcel 5 (002-281-15) is undeveloped. The existing landscaping includes: 15 Redwoods, Poplar Grove, Live Oaks, and an Ash Grove on the north property line. The 16 surrounding uses are as follows: 17 18 ■ North: Grace Hudson Museum; and zoned Public Facilities (PF); 19 ■ East: Residential, and zoned Heavy Commercial (C2); Undeveloped, and zoned High 20 Density Residential (R3); 21 ■ South: Professional services, professional office, and zoned Community Commercial 22 (C1); residential and zoned Medium Density Residential (R2); 23 ■ West: a variety of retail, restaurant, and offices uses zoned Community Commercial 24 (C1)). 25 26 27 STAFF ANALYSIS 28 29 General Plan: The General Plan land use designation of the parcel is Commercial (C). 3o Residential uses with a maximum density of 28 units per acre are allowed in the Commercial 31 land use designation. Based on an approximately 65,923 square foot parcel (1.51 acre), a 32 maximum of 42 units would be allowed. 33 34 The General Plan Housing Element identifies the subject property as a prime redevelopment 35 site for affordable high density residential housing. It identifies the 2-story maximum 36 development constraint, and the high density residential use question (B-2 Infill Area) contained 37 in the Airport Master Plan (see below). 38 39 The General Plan Housing Element also identifies affordable senior housing as a high priority 4o for the City, particularly 1-bedroom and studio dwelling units. The proposed project would 41 provide 35 1-bedroom units, which would significantly assist in the fulfillment of this need. 42 43 44 Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan: The project site is situated in the primary approach 45 zone (B-2) for the Ukiah Municipal Airport. Planes descending to land are approximately 800 46 feet above the site and therefore density/safety and noise are identified issues. However, the 47 "Infill Policies" of both the City Airport Master Plan and the Mendocino County Airports Sun House Senior Housing Preliminary Application 517 Main Street(APN 002-281-15,18,24,28,30) January 8,2015 Design Review Board Meeting City File No.:646 2 1 Compatibility Plan (policy 2.1.6) apply to the site. These policies allow new development of a 2 similar intensity to that of surrounding, already existing uses. The Policy sets the following limits 3 on future residential development in the B-2 Infill Area: 4 5 "New (Multi-Family) residential development is discouraged in this zone. However, 6 where such development is considered the best land use for a particular parcel with 7 regard to general city planning — because of its lower sensitivity to noise compared to 8 single family residential uses — be deemed normally acceptable. Any new multi-family 9 residential development shall not exceed 28 dwelling units per acre. A/so, any proposed 10 multi-family residenfial development on a parcel of more than 4 acres shall maintain a 11 minimum of 30% open space....." 12 13 If and when a project is submitted for planning entitlements, it will be necessary for the City 14 Council to formally determine that high density residential development is the best land use for 15 the site when balancing the need for affordable housing close to the downtown and services 16 with safety and the need to protect the airport. 17 18 19 Zoning: The site has three zoning classifications. Two of the parcels are zoned "C-1" 20 (Community Commercial; two parcels are zoned "C-2" (Heavy Commercial); and one of the 21 parcels is zoned "P-F" (Public Facility). High density residential housing is either allowed or 22 permitted in both the C-1 and C-2 zoning districts. High density residential land uses are not 23 allowed or permitted in the "P-F" zoning district. 24 25 Development Criteria Requirement Proposed Uses C-1: Duplex/Multi-Family allowed High Density Multi-Family C-2: Duplex/Multi-Family permitted Residential consistent with R-3 standards P-F: High Density not allowed or permitted Density C-1: 28 dua 28 dua C-2:28 dua P-F: n/a Height Limit C-1: 50-feet Height to be determined. C-2:40-feet P-F: 30-40 feet 2-stories Airport Master Plan: 2-stories Setback: Front Yard (minimum) C-1: 10 ft/15 ft 2id story Varies—appears to be consistent C-2: 10 ft/15 ft 2nd story P-F: per adjacent zoning Sun House Senior Housing Preliminary Application 517 Main Street(APN 002-281-15,18,24,28,30) January 8,2015 Design Review Board Meeting City File No.:646 3 Setback: Side Yard (minimum) C-1: per adjacent zoning:10 ft min Generally consistent—some C-2: per adjacent zoning:10 ft min encroachments P-F: per adjacent zoning:10 ft min Setback: Rear Yard(minimum) C-1: per adjacent zoning:10 ft min Generally consistent C-2: per adjacent zoning:10 ft min P-F: per adjacent zoning:10 ft min Parking (minimum MFR: 1 per bedroom (42) 42 Landscaping 20% Unknown 1 2 3 Design Guidelines: The City's design guidelines apply only to commercial projects. 4 5 CONCLUSION 6 7 Staff requests the Design Review Board review the proposed Precise Development Plan 8 required as part of the proposed rezoning to Planned Development and make a 9 recommendation to Planning Commission and City Council. 10 11 ATTACHMENTS 12 13 1. Project Descriptions December 16, 2014; 14 2. Project Plans date stamped December 16, 2014; 15 3. Preliminary Landscape Plan date stamped December 18, 2014 16 Sun House Senior Housing Preliminary Application 517 Main Street(APN 002-281-15,18,24,28,30) January 8,2015 Design Review Board Meeting City File No.:646 4 S U N H O U S E S E N I O R H O U S I N G U K I A H C A L I F O R N I A � , � F. + f*. �.I � � � � � . �� l , < < _J.. 7 , , , ,, , � Y � 1 f l � �� i I � y �+`�� - � - . � � � f � ' � � z � � � � �� ti . � 119 SUMMER SOLSTICE 119 MAX ALTI UDE = 7 CLEVELAND ST ��-+ 61 N/INTER OLSTIC 61 MAX ALTI UDE = 4 � NOT TO SCALE S U N H O U S E S E N I O R H O U S I N G U K I A H C A L I F O R N I A , � � � � , _ , - � — - ' , � ' �- � , _ ,- i � ��_ I , � � ' , _ , - � 1�� ; �l, � — � , - - � � � �'�� j � � i � ' � � / � � ' / � / I / � � � ` \ / I / \ � � � � � I � � \ � �' / \ I � �'�' I � \ � / � � � � � , � j / � :� � � � � � i � � •..r�; � � — — � � � � � � � � � � \ � � - � � 1 � \ � — _ — ' � � � — � � - - ,, _ , .� , � � � i' � � � � ' i �y i � i B ` � - i\ � �� ki � � i � ' 0 � \� � � _ %i /� I � I�- � - - � � - , � ` �i - � _ � , , � � � � � � , � � � � � � ` � � � i � i � i � i i � i i � � ,� i � _I � , � � � � � 1 \ � � / � — � � i i �� O / I \ �/ � _ ,� � \ � \ � ` � ' f / I � � � \ � — \ — � — — i � — �/ / I ...: \ / — � i � ` � � _ _ _ _ _ - TOP OF CURB � � I/ / / I\I I\ O / \ / — � � \/� ... ..�.\ .. .. -- � \ . . . . ._.. . . . � ... .. .. -. EL=616.29 ._ r \ \\/ � � / / / / .._ _ — � � \ / \ � /�I\ / I � \\ , — — / � _ \ _ � i / \\ / ' � � \ � �// �\� � � � � � � � � � / y � _ _ / �\ 1� / _ � � _ / � ��<� �/ � � � Z 1 � � /�\ � / � �. _ � �1 � � �' `�,, � /11 � � _ � � \ � � � � � � �� `�,i � � — � \ � � � — � EL=615.]8 / � / � � I I / \ � // _ �� / �� — � � � EL=615.80 \ �— L � I � /I \ I \ / I� \/ I / �� / — I � / � � 1 � / � � � � � \ / \ � — � / � \ / \ � \ �/� � � I / � � � � —�� _ � \ � � ; � I � � � �/ � TOP OF CURB 11 / EL=fii4.64 I\ I / / � � / / / II I I ' / \ \ � � ' / � � / � � \ � � � � � � i � DIRT WPLKWAY O \ \ \ / � I I/ \ I / \ \ /�� / / � \ _ _ , _ - , , PATH � , � �� i � -- _ \ _ �\- , � � , � , , � ' � � i X X TOP OF CURB 1 / ' \� ' � � \ � � � � 'o EL=614.33 / � � /I � \ \ � / � � / � � / � / � \ a� \ � � �/ � � — ' — \�I � —� I �\ � �' �� / /\� � I � / � � � � � � � / i� 1 / �� I/ �` � � � � ` � \ \I \ � � v � �� i � i � � � � � ��\ \�� ATH � � / X / � �� I I � � �\ /� I � � �/�� \� � � � / / \ \ �� ;f;; � \ �/� Y \y� 7 y/� / , � — � _ / / ( � �\ / \ �\ \� � \ \ \ \ � � I � � � i i— — i i i y i i i � � � � — �' — —�-�-r—�� i o 0 0 � � o � � � � �� — _ �— �—° � � � AT � � - - - - - - - -`- � � \ - � - - - - - - - - , - - - - - - , --- � EL-614.00 � _ _ — \ - __- _____- -- \ � 1� � / — / vi —� � �=-i � j� - 1�� - � �'• � � / �- -�-- - � - - � - - � -- �\� � � �/ � / � �� i / _ � � - �= SETBACK LINE � � - � '� � = = - _ "� � � � � eNO oF soewuK C� � � � I � O � � � � � � / � � > � i ' � , � � � � I ��' � � �� . �;i � � / � -\ -- �. �-- ....._..---- � PARK I I GARDEN � � '� n� � i � . � � & � � � — "� � � ��CO I�� U�V ITY I � � DOG � � � " � — — — �., �I � RUN �,, e I � �� C� TER �� , i . � . - = � TOPEOF RB 1 ' H � I L I N G - 80�� D � z � — O � � � z m ---� � � I m � -- r _, ° Y, Z H C � I m m � ," �� I � I � . � HC ; I t � � - --- � . I ---- I i BUIL�IN A�� + ---- i -I-- - _ I PRO LINE � �" �— � — . � ��. � � + I I , � --- -- � I--- � � � I� _ - -------— + , PARKIN�� 1 � � -- 1 � ° I ---- � ,_ � � � ------ 18 SPACE � + �AR�KING� i � � � - �� ° ° � � � � �3 S�ACES �_ . � � _ �� I ---- > �, � �� - � � �, I L 2 ,. � �� I ---- - . ��. I � � 119 SUMMER OLSTICE 11g ' I � \ I --- MAX ALT UDE=7 � � , � ,� _ � 1 �� / - --------- � 61 INTER OLSTIC 61 + TB �K LINE — 1 _ MAX ALT UDE=4 - — � � � . 1 0 5' 10' 30' _ � - � - �LEVELAND ST . 3 SITE FLOO R PLAN & PARTIAL CO NTE �T PLAN 1 " = 30'-0" ii � ,,. � , � , , � � � � � � / \ � � � � / � 1 � I / / i � \ / � � i � � i 11 I � , � , - - � � � , _ _ �, � � � - i i � � � 11 � i � , ' ` � � . _ � � _ _ ' � � ii � i � � o � � i � � i /� `\ \ X � � , ii i � � � � \ ` - �i i i ' ` � � � � - - � � _ _ _ � \ � �� i i � - - %� �� X � > ' , ' � � � � � i � �i � � \ /� � i � — � �� / � - - � \ \/ / � � \ \ / � / \ � \ \ / / - _ � \ / / / / / � - - � \/ �Ij-� /- - � \ \ l� X / / \ \ / / \ / ` \ \ \\ _ - / / / / \ / / � � \ \ \ \ � � � � ` � � ' � l�i� � � \ \ 1 � � / � \ / � / \ � ` � i � � - - � - - � � -�- - � - � � - - , / � � � � / � 1 \ � � � \ � \ / , - - � -��, I _�\� � �� / I / � j�-=-�,� \ � � � � � / X �_ � � � ......\ � l � \ � � ! � i � - - > � � - -j \ - � \ l i il �� \Y �� y \ � � � I i� iX � � � / � /� X , � � :.=:.7.�� ; � , � ; � , `, ,�, _� ,�' , � � �� , , - , - � , � , � � ,� X, �� ,,;, � ;,�� , ATH � ,�,; � ,� �� x u � �� ' ; � ' � , ' � ; ' ` , �! ��,�% �� : � �� ,�� Ck `; - ; �� y , - - - � , � , , � � �� ` � � � T — — ' � � � � � � � � � � � � � � _ � i � _ —� ,f � � � � � \ � � � � \ � � l � — � / � � 1 � �"'' � � �Y � /�- — I � \ � I \ � \ � I � o � I � � � I � I � \ 1 � � � I� �i � � — � _ o _ o � lo 0 0 � ` � � ' PATH � � ' ' ' �' ' � = �� - — � �— � - - � , ,°' " � � , , , � � ,- - - - - �-- - - - - - - _ — — x—� — _ ,�� ,, ; , ,, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ ---- --- � , , � � � � ` � � ,� _ � � , , � _ , � � � , � � , , � ----- _-_ -1- _ , � , � X � \ / \ j / 1 O' � T � \ ' � - -- - - -� - _ _ — - - _ ' � ------ � T�-l- �i i�' i u \ � - - �--_, - i - _ , , -- -- - � - - � � - - � '` � � -- � - � � � � ) V � � - � � - � � � i i � SETBACK LINE I � - - - _ — ' � � ' ' _ � ` � , � � - - � � � � _ - � � J�-- , , ', , — , _ ' � � _� , - END OF SIDEWALK ' � � � � � � ' � � � � ' � �� / ' � � � � � � � i �I� - - � � 1 � � � 1 � � - , , , � � � , , _ - , � � � � � \. � � '�, � � , � _ --- ----- i , _ , � -- , , � � , I , ------ , ,� ,�� GARDEN �' , � � � , , � -� , - PARK � � - � & , � , - , �—� � , � � ` _ � � � � i i � - �' , _ — � .,--- � - � � CO N� U �V ITY � �o� � � � , _ , , , , __ � � , � , �� P , , �� a � — � � ._ �� RU N � i . _ _ , _ _ . _ — , ' C T� R � _ ❑ , � � � � ° _ — -v - � � � ' . O � � � � � � \ ' _— — — — � �� ' � � � / Q' � � I I _ � �' • � -v � . C� . o �\ � � - � o I I - �' � � _ � � �� 1 � ; � I � _ 8a �' 1 � ,� � � L�D I N G � � � ► �' � � . � � � ,�, � Z I � I ---- Z m� ------, _ _ I --- � , C� m , — � . . � � o � . � � ; i , . � � , _ � � � z . � o '�, �, �� --- ---� � �C --- � z � rn I I -------- � I �' 1 -- - . � -- I � ,' � ---- � . � � I - � j �I I I , , , � H C ------ ; , , , � . � ' a � -- � E ACK L E - - ; � � --- 1 � . ❑ � � ; BUIL ,DIN - � � : , � o 0 � � � � � � �� - . � — _ � �� _ _ _ _ — _ — � — -------- � PR — � -1 - �I- - � O LINE — o� ' _ 1 I . ( � I _ , � � � I V ' � � � -- _-- � � � ------ � � -1 � � � ' I I ---- I �'I . _ , � � 1 I . '� I I � ❑ � I I _ , , PARKIN 1 ---- � , + i i ------ , o _ , o i i i o _ � � ; � i � i ----- ' � � ; ' ' ' 18 SPACE � � � � ------ , � , , ----- � i � i - _ � - �� , � � � A R�KI N G__------------- ' o 0 __ � , _------ _ �3 S �ACES -- L � � - ' � � ' - � , __ _ , �� ,� . . �� -- �� , . � , , � � , � - , � , � � o �. , UIL 2 � � � �� , � � � , �� , , , �� ---- � --- ----- / . � o -� . � , , �_ � _ � � � �� - � �� - � � ------ � � - � - � � - � ► � �-- � _ � ---- - � , �� e � �� ' � � i � — -------- ' � i , � /\ 3 � � — ------ � � � /% � TBP�K LI N E � — I , � � I I ' -----� — — — — — — — — — — . I , - - - -��-� E - - - - - � SITE FLOO R PLAN 119 SUMMER OLSTICE 119 EXISTING TREE MAX ALT UDE=7 1/16" = 1 '-0" 61 INTER OLSTIC 61 MAX ALTI UDE=4 � �� EXISTING TREE � � � 0 5' io' 30� ��/ TO BE REMOVED + NEW TREE 119 SUMMER SOLSTICE 119 MAX ALTI UDE = 7 61 �/�/INTER OLSTIC 61 MAX ALTI UDE = 4 0 0 5 ' 10 ' 3 0 ' � � 0 - - - - ��a ❑ ❑ ] � � �� _ _ o u o u � u o - - - - - � o � o � o � o �� - - - - - - ° � - '�� o I I - - - - - - - - - � ° �� 0�� 0�� ,� �� , � u � �� o � '�� ' ' � � � � ' ,� 0 J J � '�I � ` � ' � � 0 � � � � �L O Q� � I � ❑ �I � ,0• I �� o c � I � II O � �� - �� - - n o o n , � ' " � �� ° ° �� I 'o. l � � o �� o � � � ❑ �II I� �I 0� � I = _ I � �0 0� � I � � ❑ ❑ - - � I D � o i I I I a ,0•I I i - - � � � [� �I I � I o II J I I � � II ° U I �� J � �� o n � I n o o n I II � _ I ° �� I ' I� ° ° �I I I II.O' I � � o � I I � o � � � �� o � I � �I I� �I _ ❑ I I I � �� _ _ �� J I I L J� �L J I I ❑ - - ❑ ❑ . . C� �� o �II II�; ,0•II � �] � I ' II II ' I I ' � I i� o O I II II i I I � II U L �� L - �� - - II � II I II � 0 0 II I� � 0 0 � n o ° o n � n o ° o n I I, � o ,I �I� o o 'I � o �� o � I I I o �� o � I� �I I� �I I I � � I I I LJD �LJ � I LJ� OLJ I ❑ - _ - ❑ II0 - �II II:� �II II I I II II I I I � I II I I _ II II � _ I I _ J II u - �� J � �� - II II �� J � �� B ILDIN 2 FIR T FL R PLAN n FI r imil r � � U G & 3 S 00 Seco 0o S a 1,8�� = 1 �-�� 119 SUMMER SOLSTICE 119 MAX ALTI UDE = 7 61 �/�/INTER OLSTIC 61 �� MAX ALTI UDE = 4 I I , � \ �I �� - � - J � J 0 5 ' 10 ' 3 0 ' � � - , o � � � ❑ � - �° � � - o n 0 � �� - —_ — - I—I � _ _ _ �' _ _ _ �' o II � II � 0 �I � 0 i i i a� � _ _ � _ . I� - �I � � _ �� i ' o. � ' � i _ i _ � � ,i � � � � � � �i�i � � � _ ' � � � � o � � � ,� ❑ ❑ � �� ❑ ° �, o I� � �� ❑ ° 0 o _ � � �� C ] � �� L C� � � u � � � u �� C,�, - — o � o �� o _ ,� � , �i o u - - - ,� _ - - - ,� _ i � _ ' �� Q.� � � � � 1 BUILDING 1 � 1�8�� = 1�-0��