HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRBM_11132014final ��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