HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRBM_02192015 Final ��ty � u�iah City of Ukiah, CA
Design Review Board
1
2 MINUTES
3
4 Regular Meeting February 19, 2015
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, Alan Nicholson, Colin
11 Morrow
12 Absent: Nick Thayer, Howie Hawkes
13
14 Staff Present: Planning Director, Charley Stump
15 Michelle Johnson, Assistant Planner
16 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
17
18 Others present: Jennifer McGown, Applicant
19
20 3. CORRESPONDENCE:
21
22 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes from the January 18, 2015 meeting are
23 included for review and approval.
24
25 M/S Nicolson/Morrow to approve the minutes from the January 18, 2015 meeting, as submitted.
26 Motion carried by an all AYE voice vote of the members present(3-0).
27
28 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
29
30 The DRB is required by the City Code to review and make a recommendation on all Site
31 Development Permit applications.
32
33 6. NEW BUSINESS:
34 6A. 1320 South State Street McG's Family Fun Center Site Development Permit (File
35 No.: 666): Review and Recommendation on a Site Development Permit for McG's Family
36 Fun Center.
37
38 Assistant Planner Johnson:
39 • Approval of a Major Site Development Permit is required for this project due to the
40 amount of square footage of the building.
41 • The majority of the improvements/changes to the building will be interior related. There
42 are no proposed changes to the fa�ade of the building.
43 • There is sufficient parking on the site for the use.
44 • Staff is requesting the DRB make comments with a recommendation to Planning
45 Commission regarding the landscaping.
46 • Provided the DRB with a copy of comments from Member Thayer included in the minutes
47 as attachment 1.
48
49 Planning Director Stump:
50 • Acknowledged the existing parking lot is large. There are many more parking spaces
51 than are essentially necessary for the use.
Design Review Board February 19, 2015
Page 1
1 • Encourages the DRB to be sensitive to the fact the proposed project is an adaptive re-
2 use of an existing building. Is of the opinion it would not be appropriate to require the
3 applicant meet City landscaping standards for the parking lot.
4 • The applicants are proposing some landscaping for the site.
5 • Inquired about the protocol related to drop-off of children.
6
7 Member Morrow:
8 • Requested clarification concerning the project description and plans to restripe the
9 existing parking lot for 11 standard parking spaces on the State Street frontage.
10 • Are there plans to use that paved area along Wabash Avenue?
11
12 Assistant Planner Johnson:
13 • The applicants intent to plant well-established trees, shrubs, flowers in the green
14 landscaping planter area along the State Street frontage that will provide shade and
15 aesthetically improve the appearance of the site. The project description submitted by the
16 applicants (attachment 1 of the staff report) specially provides information about the
17 landscaping plans for the site.
18
19 Vice Chair Liden:
20 • Inquired about the chain link fence/barrier along the Wabash Avenue side of the site and
21 the plans thereof.
22
23 Member Nicholson:
24 • Asked about the intent of the 13 parking spaces and whether or not they meet
25 occupancy/use requirements.
26 • Requested clarification any new lighting will be International Dark Sky Association
27 compliant. Will the light mounted on the pole next to Wabash Avenue be replaced?
28 • Would like to discuss Member Thayer's comments regarding the landscaping.
29
30 Jennifer McGowan, Applicant:
31 • Is leasing the property.
32 • Related to the position of the building all of the parking is in the front of the building for
33 easy access to the building. The site was a former RV sales establishment. It appears the
34 side parking lot is where the RVs were parked located on the Wabash Avenue side of the
35 lot. There is an entrance from Wabash Avenue to the site that operates as a drive-thru to
36 the building. The existing large parking lot that fronts State Street would be for
37 customer/patron use.
38 • The purpose for the location is the dwelling/warehouse that offers a great place for an
39 indoor community recreation facility and will feature a laser tag game as the primary
40 focus, arcade machines and a small indoor concession stand that sells food and non-
41 alcoholic beverages. The food served will be prepackaged items that do not require the
42 use of or discharge of oil.
43 • Bicycle racks will be installed on the Wabash Avenue side of the site to accommodate
44 children riding bikes to the facility as opposed to encouraging more vehicles. Children will
45 be dropped off to the recreational facility by parents.
46 • Recognizes the need for more recreational facilities for children in the community and this
47 is the reason for the proposed project where children can participate in fun/recreational
48 activities in a safe environment.
49 • Confirmed parents will typically drop-off their children and leave. The children
50 participating in the activities are in the age range where they do not need to be
51 accompanied by their parents.
52 • Hours of operations are centered around weekends and after school.
53 • The interior of the building will be repainted. There will be touch-up painting to exterior
54 portions of the building where the existing color scheme will remain the same.
Design Review Board February 19, 2015
Page 2
1 • Referenced the chain link fence and acknowledged it essentially consists of a chain that
2 extends across a designated area. There are two such chained-off areas on the Wabash
3 Avenue side of the site, one of which will likely remain closed-off and would depend upon
4 traffic flow.
5 • Related to the use and required parking, a determination as to what type of business
6 most categorically fits with the allowed/permitted uses in the C-2. The proposed project is
7 similar to the parks, playgrounds, community gardens and other recreational uses
8 approved in the C-2 zoning designation.
9 • With the building being 3,500 sq. ft., comparatively the use related to retail/commercial
10 requires one vehicle per 300 sq. ft. Also, in her research found for an electronic video
11 game/arcade use a certain amount of parking is required.
12 • Confirmed lighting will be International Dark Sky Association compliant. The existing
13 lighting would be replaced with LED lights. The issue of lighting on site is addressed in
14 her project description.
15 • The light mounted on the pole on Wabash Avenue will be replaced. Finds the site well lit
16 likely for security purposes because it formerly functioned as a commercial business that
17 sold RVs.
18
19 Assistant Planner Johnson:
20 • Confirmed page 3 of the staff report addresses the required parking. While the zoning
21 ordinance includes parking requirements for a variety of commercial recreational uses,
22 none of them are appropriate for the Project. The zoning ordinance provides for parking
23 requirements for places of commercial recreation uses that are appropriate for the project
24 and these include: 1) Game Room, Arcades — one parking space for each four game
25 machines. 2) Recreation Buildings and Community Centers — parking spaces required
26 equal in number to 35% of the capacity of persons.
27 • Since the zoning ordinance does not include a parking requirement for the proposed use,
28 the number of parking spaces required will be determined by the Planning Commission
29 through the use permit process.
30
31 Member Nicholson:
32 • Project is an appropriate use for the site.
33 • According to Member Thayer's comments parking lots are typically divided up with
34 planters with one tree for every four parking spaces. Understands there is plenty of
35 landscaping on the South State Street frontage to accommodate `the quantity of trees.'
36 Asked if the Planning Department had comments/thoughts regarding shade requirements
37 for this particular project.
38
39 Planning Director Stump:
40 • Acknowledged with the existing western trees the parking lot will be shaded for quite a
41 while each day. The building will be shaded.
42 • Does not see a need to add shade trees.
43 • Adding tree wells every four spaces would be `redundant and costly' for this project. Is of
44 the opinion this is not necessary.
45
46 Vice Chair Liden:
47 • May want to consider Member Thayer's comments (attachment 1 of the minutes). Mr.
48 Thayer is a landscape designer and the applicants may want to consult with him
49 concerning landscaping for the site. Understands Mr. Thayer helped prepare the City's
50 approved tree lists relative to parking lots, street trees, etc.
51 • Some of Member Thayer's comments include:
52 o Tree species selection is not acceptable. Arbutus Unedo is a small-scale
53 evergreen and is not a shade tree and recommends the applicants refer to the
54 City approved Parking Lot Tree List.
Design Review Board February 19, 2015
Page 3
1 o Further recommends for the site such tree species as the native Valley Oak or
2 Plane Tree.
3 o Would like to see more street trees along the northern boundary of the property
4 as there are currently no trees along this edge of the property.
5 o The previous owners of the property cut down several large Redwood trees prior
6 to selling the property.
7 o Grevilla is a large genera of Australian native not all of which are cold hardy in
8 Ukiah's climate.
9 o Irrigation system may be inadequate for plant material needs and made
10 suggestions in this regard.
11
12 Jennifer McGowan:
13 • Reviewed the City approved Parking Lot tree list and determined there were only three
14 tree species that can be used in conjunction with the existing overhead power lines in the
15 front portion of the property. There may be some tree species that would be appropriate.
16
17 Member Liden:
18 • Member Thayer may not be aware of the potential problem associated with the existing
19 overhead power lines and the tree species he recommends.
20 • Asked if there are existing irrigation systems available on the site.
21 • Likes the Project and is of the opinion it will greatly benefit children in the community.
22
23 Member Morrow:
24 • Finds Member Thayer's comments regarding the landscaping to be helpful and
25 informative.
26 • It would be nice to see some shading along the north side of the property, particularly
27 during the summer months. Observed there is a lot of paving on the northern portion of
28 the property. There may be some landscaping opportunities along the posted chain area
29 on the northern side.
30
31 Jennifer McGowan:
32 • Noted there is one existing faucet on the site that can be used for irrigation purposes.
33 However, there is no access to water on the northern portion of the site; it is all asphalt
34 and sidewalk. Landscaping could possibly be installed in this area, but it would be costly.
35
36 Member Morrow:
37 • His landscaping suggestions could be looked at from a long term perspective.
38
39 M/S Nicholson/Morrow that the DRB recommends Planning Commission approval of the
40 proposed Site Development Permit application for McG's Family Fun Center with some
41 revisions/modifications to the landscape plan taking into consideration Member Thayer's
42 comments. (Motion carried 3-0 with Members Thayer and Hawkes absent).
43
44 7. MATTERS FROM THE BOARD:
45
46 8. MATTERS FROM STAFF:
47 Planning Director Stump:
48 • The PEP senior housing project has formally submitted an application for a General Plan
49 amendment, rezone to PD and Site Development Permit and asked if the DRB would like
50 to review these plans in addition to the preliminary plans the Board recently reviewed.
51 • Would like the DRB to review the design aspects, color palate and materials relevant to
52 the formal application.
53 • Recommends having a special DRB meeting in early March for the DRB to review the
54 PEP senior housing project.
Design Review Board February 19, 2015
Page 4
1 DRB is fine with formal review of the Project.
2
3 9. SET NEXT MEETING
4 A special meeting will be Tuesday, March 3, 2015 at 3:00 p.m.
5
6 10. ADJOURNMENT
7 The meeting adjourned at 3:31 p.m.
8
9
10 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
Design Review Board February 19, 2015
Page 5
A1fiacF�rr�er�i �"� �
Michelle Johnson �`
From: Nicholas Thayer < mail@lateafternoon.com >
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 2:58 PM
To: ' . Michelle Johnson
Subject: . Special DRB - thoughts on site development at 1320 S. State
Hello Michelle, ,
Thanks for the package for review. I will, unfortunately, not be able to attend today' s meeting,
continued family medical needs. But I would like to make some recommendations to the Board and to the
Planning Commission.
+ I am supportive of the proposed use for the property. Wish the applicant the best in opening their new
business.
+ Tree species selection is NOT acceptable. Arbutus unedo is a small-scale, evergreen tree, it is NOT a
shade tree. Applicant should refer to the City approved Parking Lot or Park list. I would recommend either our
native Valley Oak (Quercus lobata) or Plane Tree (Platanus x acerifolia ` Bloodgood' ) .
+ I would like to see more street trees added along Northern boundary of property. There are currently
no trees along this edge of the property. It is worth pointing out that the previous owners of the property cut
down several large Redwoods prior to selling the property.
+ Plan shows 13 parking stalls . Doesn't this quantity dicate that tree strips be added to the parking
layout to facilitate greater vehicle and paving shading?
+ Landscape plan is inadequate to meet the requirement of the "50% of the landscaped area shall be
dedicated to live plantings". The proposed plant count will not cover this amount of area ( 140 ' long x 26 ' deep
= 3 ,640 sq ft) Plant coverage is estimated at 1 ,500 square feet ( 100 sq ft per "Grevillea" shrub, and 25 sq ft per
Muhlenbergia grass) .
+ Grevilla is a large genera of Australian natives, not all of which are cold hardy in our climate. Not
certain which species the Applicant is proposing. I would recommend an alternate of our native Manzanita
(Arctostaphylos x `Howard McMinn' ) . And more than the proposed 12 count on the plan. Applicatant should
be mindful that their signage may in time be blocked
� + Irrigation system may be inadequate for plant materials needs . Applicant should check performance
specifications for 1 /2" POLYETHYLENE tubing. I would like to see installation details from the Applicant to
ensure continued performance of the irrigation system.
Many thanks, Nick
Nicholas Thayer
mail(cr�,lateafternoon. com
707-462-5133 office
707-362-0680 mobile
1