HomeMy WebLinkAbout03262015 - packet City of Ukiah
Design Review Board
� '�"� Thursday March 26, 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 Morrow
3. CORRESPONDENCE: None.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes from the March 03, 2015 and March 12, 2015
meeting will be available 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. Chipotle's Mexican Grill Restaurant 596 East Perkins Street, (File No.: 842):
Review and recommendation to Planning Commission on a Site Development Permit
for construction of a 2,000 square foot Chipotle Mexican Grill restaurant on the vacant
parcel located in the Downtown Zoning District at the northwest corner of East Perkins
Street and Orchard Avenue. On-site parking and landscaping are also proposed, as is
outdoor dining along both street frontages at 596 East Perkins Street, APN 002-200-38.
7. MATTERS FROM THE BOARD:
8. MATTERS FROM STAFF:
9. SET NEXT MEETING: April 9, 2015
10. 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.
G�ity of Zl�ah City of Ukiah, CA
Design Review Board
1
2 MINUTES
3
4 Regular Meeting March 3, 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 #5.
9
10 2. ROLL CALL Present: Vice Chair Tom Liden, Alan Nicholson,
11 Howie Hawkes, Colin Morrow
12
13 Absent: Nick Thayer
14
15 Staff Present: Charley Stump, Planning Director
16 Michelle Johnson, Assistant Planner
17 Kevin Thompson, Principal Planner
18 Shannon Riley, Project& Grant Administrator
19 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
20
21 Others present: Bob Hayes
22 Ann Baker
23 Jim Langford
24
25 3. CORRESPONDENCE:
26
27 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes from the February 19, 2015 meeting are
28 included for review and approval.
29
30 M/S Morrow/Nicholson to approve the minutes from the February 19, 2015 meeting, as
31 submitted. Motion carried by an all AYE voice vote of the members present (3-0) with Member
32 Hawkes abstaining and Member Thayer absent.
33
34 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
35
36 The DRB is required by the City Code to review and make a recommendation on all Site
37 Development Permit applications.
38
39 6. NEW BUSINESS:
40 6A. 517 North Main Street, (PEP Housing) Sun House Senior Housing Project; General
41 Plan Amendment, Rezoning and New Precise Development Plan (File No.: 749):
42 Review and Recommendation on a Precise Development Plan to allow the construction
43 of three two-story building clusters that will include a total of 42 affordable senior housing
44 units, community center, and designated open space.
45
46 Assistant Planner Johnson:
47 • Introduced new City of Ukiah Principal Planner, Kevin Thompson.
48 • Member Thayer has submitted comments that are included in the minutes as attachment
49 1.
50 • The DRB previously reviewed the conceptual design for the PEP Housing project in
51 January 2015. An official application has been received and staff requests the DRB make
Design Review Board March 3, 2015
Page 1
1 final comments relevant to the landscaping and architectural design/color palate and
2 materials for the Project.
3 • The Project involves a General Plan Amendment to designate the site HDR(High Density
4 Residential) and a rezone to (PD) Planned Development, (R-3) High Density Residential
5 and a Precise Development Plan that is required to allow the construction of the three
6 two-story building clusters consisting of 42 units, community center, garden area, open
7 space/park area, parking accommodations and pathways.
8 • Project includes: 1) 42 housing units; 2) 31 parking spaces; 3) (3) two story building
9 clusters with architectural style consistent with the Sun House; 4) A Community Center;
10 5) building roofs that are oriented to the south to maximize solar output; 6) screened
11 parking lots; 7)garden area; 8)onsite open space/park area.
12
13 The site plan addresses the project description as provided for on architectural sheets (A1.0,
14 A1.1, A2.0, A2.1, A2.2, A2.3, A2.4, A3.0, A3.1 and A3.2)
15
16 Bob Hayes, Architect for PEP Senior Housing Project referred to the site plans as provided
17 for on attachment 3 of the staff report and presented the Project:
18 • There have been very few architectural design changes since the DRB last looked at the
19 Project with regard to buildings 1, 2, & 3 and the Community Center.
20 • The angle of the Community Center has changed somewhat and is a bit more diagonal.
21 Has been working with the Sun House Museum related to access between the two
22 facilities.
23 • Explained in detail the location of the various facilities related to parking, open
24 space/courtyard area, the buildings, pathways, etc., and how they will interact/function for
25 the persons living in the complex.
26 • The site and building orientation/configuration were designed with the architectural
27 integrity of the Museum theme in mind.
28
29 Ann Baker, Landscape Architect for PEP Senior Housing Project:
30 • Very few changes have been made to the landscaping since the DRB reviewed the
31 conceptual plans.
32 • Permeable paving will be implemented for the parking area to help address water runoff
33 and explained the other associated benefits thereof. Further addressed how
34 paving/pavers will work for the site.
35 • Explained other changes made in and around the Community Center in connection with
36 the patio.
37 • Explained the objective of the arbor and corresponding location where the intent is to
38 screen the parking lot and provide more privacy in the park space.
39 • Explained the changes made to form related to one of the interior pathways on the site
40 and its relationship to the Community Center.
41 • The raised beds have been modified and addressed what is being proposed related to
42 the landscaping features and noted one of the beds will be wheelchair accessible.
43 • The form for the pathway connecting to the parking lot has changed.
44 • Focus has been to `fill in' the plant choices/plant palate as provided for in the reference
45 sheets, L-1.0 and L-1.1 of the Landscape Plan: 1) Two arbors are proposed and
46 explained the aesthetics thereof; 2) Talked about shade plantings in and around the
47 walking paths between the PEP Project and the Museum Project; 3) Related to fencing,
48 the intent is to install split-rail fencing along the community pathway and demonstrated
49 the location such that the objective would be to `echo' the Museum split-rail fence without
50 copying it. Explained fencing objectives related to the east side of the property that will
51 introduce the use of grape stakes on the back side of the property and explained how so
52 related to security purposes.
53 • Related to one of the pathways as shown on the site plans, intent is to align the edging
54 with the pavers to provide some relation between the different components of the Project.
Design Review Board March 3, 2015
Page 2
1 Member Hawkes:
2 • Will cars park on the pavers?Will the base be nicely compacted?
3
4 Ann Baker:
5 • Confirm cars will park on the pavers.
6 • Confirmed the paving has an engineered base that will contain a permeable class 2 base
7 as opposed to a Class 2 Caltrans base having the same structural rating, but more
8 durable quality. Explained how the permeable paving will work in connection with the
9 pavers.
10 • The Project will feature stabilized aggregate pathways, one of which will have a `Flag
11 Stone' border. The pathways are designed with safety in mind.
12 • Related to the plant palate that will feature such species as Valley Oak, Trident Maples,
13 fruit trees, Redwood trees, Persimmons to name a few and showed the various locations
14 thereof. Also, identified the shrubs that will be featured on the site.
15 • The parking lot will feature Trident Maples. Trident Maples do fine/tolerant in areas that
16 have higher groundwater.
17 • Talked about the `micro-orchard' and tree species.
18 • Talked about how the landscaping that will help screen the site and provide shade.
19 • Talked about the rain garden and the plant species that will be featured.
20 • Explained the location of the native lawn that is proposed for the site. It can be mowed or
21 not and should not be cut too short.
22
23 Member Hawkes:
24 • With the landscaping being extensive does PEP contract with a landscaping business to
25 manage/maintain the landscaping?
26
27 Vice Chair Liden:
28 • Requested clarification the northern border will be shaded once the buildings are
29 constructed.
30
31 Jim Langford, PEP representative:
32 • A professional landscaping business is hired to maintain the landscaping. A warranty
33 comes with the plant palate for a specified period of time where any plant that dies will be
34 replaced.
35
36 Ann Baker:
37 • The plants around the storm water area also have a management plan as part of the
38 maintenance requirements for the Project.
39 • Confirmed the northern portion of the property will be have shade once the buildings are
40 constructed. Added, this area will have a lot of shade such that the huckleberry and
41 coffeeberry plants and other like species will do well.
42
43 Bob Hayes addressed the design of the buildings:
44 Buildinq 1 - Building is intended to incorporate/integrate design similarities from that of the Sun
45 House Museum so PEP has been working with the Museum to accomplish this goal. Using
46 design renderings explained:
47 • Building roof would have pretty much the same slope the Sun House Museum has.
48 • Incorporated some of the beam overhang design from that of the Museum and showed
49 the details on the site renderings.
50 • Explained some of symmetrical feature design on the Sun House Museum that have
51 been incorporated into Building 1.
52 • Utilized some of the same window styles.
53 • While some of the design elements are being `picked up' from the Sun House Museum
54 the intent is to do this in a different fashion and explained how so. The overall design for
Design Review Board March 3, 2015
Page 3
1 Building 1 looks like a barn to the Sun House as if it were acting like a subordinate
2 building to the Sun House in a historic sense.
3 • The intent of the building configuration was to give that `quiet' look/sense and explained
4 how the design features accomplish this objective.
5 • Explained the entrance to Building 1 in connection with the courtyard/light-well area that
6 has a very linear quality to it and front and further explained how the tenants will enter the
7 units.
8 • Explained that the 'quiet' roofs face the Museum property.
9 • Likes the park side of the building from a design perspective.
10 • The materials for this building include: 1) most part — board and batten; 2) CorTen steel
11 and demonstrated the location on the building where the intent is to provide architectural
12 enhancement to compliment the other materials to give the building that `barn' look.
13 Described in detail how the materials work on the building to give that `barn look'
14 character/appearance; 3) shingles. All buildings contain this intermix of the
15 aforementioned materials and/or some articulation/combination of the design thereof.
16 • Sheet A2.0 shows first and second floor plan for Building 1.
17 • Likes the appearance of Building 1, particularly with the linear design that is occurring.
18 The building looks like it belongs among Redwood trees. More Redwood trees will be
19 planted on the site.
20 • The building has a nice `harmony' to it, particularly with it being among the trees and
21 arbor.
22
23 Vice Chair Liden:
24 • Asked if there was a color rendering showing the relation of Building 1 to the building that
25 exists to the south.
26
27 Bob Hayes:
28 • Noted there is quite a bit of distance between Building 1 and the other buildings.
29 • Addressed Building 1 and the elevation where the balconies are located and explained
30 the low sloping of the roof and other contour features and how they collectively work for
31 the design and compliment the Sun House Museum. Solar panels will likely be installed
32 on the low sloping roof as it has a nice orientation for this type of feature. The intent is to
33 install as many solar panels on the roof as possible. The goal is to have solar panels on
34 all the building roofs that will effectively conserve energy for the units.
35
36 Jim Langford:
37 • Confirmed solar panels do assist with energy conservation and has resulted in cost
38 savings for other PEP housing projects.
39
40 Member Liden:
41 • Asked about the scale of the CorTen steel.
42
43 Bob Hayes:
44 • The aforementioned material will be corrugated and as far as related to scale the
45 material is all the same.
46 • Is of the opinion the use of CorTen steel will be architecturally pleasing and an
47 interesting material to use.
48 • Talked about the materials and materials palate, i.e., board batten/hardie board and
49 product type for the shingles.
50
51 Buildinq 2 and 3
52 • All the buildings are two stories except for the Community Center.
53 • Showed location of the corridor.
54 • Talked about the balconies and location thereof as shown on site plan renderings.
Design Review Board March 3, 2015
Page 4
1 • Discussed access and showed the location of the elevator.
2 • Talked about the elevation variations and how the symmetry design of the buildings,
3 corresponding features such as the gables/building trim, building materials/color scheme
4 and roof elevations/materials architecturally work well together.
5 • These buildings will feature `Mansard roof' styles.
6 • Sheet A2.2 shows floor plans.
7
8 Principle Planner Thompson:
9 • Will the buildings feature roof-mounted equipment?
10
11 Bob Hayes:
12 • Confirmed there would be roof-mounted equipment, but not a lot because the mechanical
13 equipment will be inside the units.
14 • Demonstrated the orientation/configuration of the buildings on the site and how they
15 interface with one another with a park in the middle so as to provide for an
16 effective/efficient/workable/comfortable living environment.
17 • Talked about the color palates for the buildings and noted Buildings 2 and 3 will feature a
18 green, tan and brown palate and demonstrated how this works aesthetically.
19 • From the site renderings showed the Mansard roofs and location of solar panels.
20
21 Community Center
22 • Building 1 and the Community Center building are similar.
23 • Is a `quiet' and simple building.
24 • Has a Hip roof in the middle of it with a hip entry.
25 • All the project buildings have similar styling/detailing.
26 • Showed on the color site/building renderings the elevation that faces the outdoor area
27 and the parking lot. Explained the entry and the use of the French doors that extend/go
28 out to the patio area.
29 • There are windows on three sides of the community center with windows that face the
30 garden area and Museum.
31 • Explained the design features and discussed where the shingles and board and batten
32 will be applied on the lower and upper portions of the building.
33
34 Cleveland Lane side of Buildinqs 2 and 3 (See sheet A1.1)
35 • No significant change from the presentation of conceptual plan other than a little more
36 building detail.
37 • Explained the application of the shingles, board and batten, color elements and how they
38 are used interchangeably to provide for a nice architectural appearance. Talked about
39 balcony design/contour and how this works with the arbors, etc.
40 • Showed the location of the parking lots and parking behind the trash enclosures.
41
42 Cleveland Lane side of Buildinq 1, Communitv Center(See sheet A1.1)
43 • Showed location of Building 1 related to location of Building 2 and 3.
44
45 Grace Hudson Museum side (See sheet A1.1)
46 • Showed location of Park, pathway, garden area.
47
48 Main Street side (See sheet A1.1)
49 • Showed the orientation of Building 1 as it relates to Main Street.
50
51 Buildinq Colors
52 • Has established the color palates for the buildings, but will more fully work the color
53 palates to make certain they are just right/appropriate during construction.
Design Review Board March 3, 2015
Page 5
1 • Showed the color palate variations for each of the buildings, where they will be applied on
2 the building in coordination with the CorTen.
3 • Explained how the color for around the window base essentially drives the color scheme
4 for the buildings because the selection only has standard colors and are typically all dark
5 colors.
6
7 Vice Chair Liden:
8 • Asked about the step-up grade between Building 1 and Building 2 and what will occur in
9 this regard.
10 • Related to the front section of the site where the existing house is located asked about
11 the intent of grade differential.
12 • Values the old Oak trees on the site and is hopeful the Valley Oak trees can be saved
13 west of the parking lot area. Surprised at how open the area is to the south in terms of
14 exposure to summer heat. Fortunately, the orientation of the buildings makes it so only
15 the end units would essentially be exposed. Also, observed the view shed to the south is
16 very unattractive especially from the second story units. It may be some type of
17 awning/vine growth should be a consideration.
18 • The Project is really nice.
19
20 Member Hawkes:
21 • Asked if the color for the roof shingles is the same for all buildings.
22 • Referred to LACO report (attachment 1 of staff report) and questioned Table 1 data on
23 page 2 of the report, the number of bedroom units for the Project does not calculate
24 accurately based on the acreage for the site. The maximum number of bedroom units
25 should calculate to 42. The table indicates 44 bedroom units and asked for clarification in
26 this regard.
27
28 Member Morrow:
29 • Asked about exterior lighting.
30 • Related to the decrease in parking spaces observed seniors in this community use 'Dial-
31 a-Ride' and asked if the Project can accommodate this type of vehicles on the site.
32
33 Bob Hayes:
34 • The intent is to make the grade a gentle slope moving easterly for grading and drainage
35 reasons. Any sloping on the site will be `gentle slopes.'
36 • The front section will be evenly graded except in the area of the water retention pond.
37 • Related to roof colors, to meet Green Building standards may do a cool roof on the flat
38 areas that is typically a light color. Preference would be to do a dark color rather than a
39 light color for the roofs.
40 • Does not have light fixtures samples available, but noted the fixture type is `Craftsman'
41 style. The lighting features are intended to be shielded and downcast. Talked about the
42 locations for the lighting fixtures and what fixture type will be used in the parking lot.
43 • Referred to the site plans and explained how the small public transit vehicles can be
44 accommodated on the site and/or it may be possible to provide a pick-up area in front of
45 the buildings for quick in and out situations.
46 • Related to the number of bedroom units allowed, confirmed 42 bedroom units allowed for
47 the Project. There should be 36 one bedroom units and 6 two bedroom units. For
48 Building 1, number of one bedroom units should be 8 as opposed to 10.
49 • Acknowledged the end units facing southerly will be exposed to the hot sun. It may the
50 cool roof will provide some relief and/or provide for some other design mitigation
51 measures, such as an awning that would more appropriately shade these units. There
52 are only two units that would be affected and showed which ones.
53
54
Design Review Board March 3, 2015
Page 6
1 Vice Chair Liden requested Member Thayer's comments be addressed.
2
3 Ann Baker:
4 • Related to the Valley Oak trees, switched a Redwood tree to another Valley Oak tree that
5 will likely provide more shade than a Redwood tree.
6 • The west side of the site will be shaded because the Valley Oak trees are tall.
7 • Related to the Member Thayer's comment, `can we use one of the smaller cultivar Ginkos
8 instead of the messy Chitalpa for the eastern parking lot. Wish we never put that tree on
9 the approved tree list, messy, gets mildew even in our heat and look silly for 10 years
10 until it matures,' noting her response, `the Chitalpa has done well in Calistoga and the
11 Gingkos have been impossibly slow. I guess site specific is everything. I'm worried the
12 trees will have wet feet in this site and recommends Trident Maples.' The Trident Maples
13 will be planted close to the parking area on the west side as is possible and showed
14 location. Noted Member Thayer is fine with the Trident Maple suggestion.
15
16 DRB consensus:
17 • Likes the Project very much and supports approval.
18
19 M/S Nicholson/Hawkes the DRB supports the proposed PEP Senior Housing Project, as
20 presented, has no particular Project issues; Project is well thought out and as the Project moves
21 forward in the approval process all `unknowns' will become evident and adequately addressed. Is
22 hopeful the Planning Commission supports the PEP housing design team recommendations at
23 the Planning Commission's stage of the Project process. (Motion carried 4-0).
24
25 7. MATTERS FROM THE BOARD:
26
27 8. MATTERS FROM STAFF:
28 Assistant Planner Johnson confirmed there will be DRB meeting on February 12, 2015.
29
30 9. SET NEXT MEETING
31 The next regular meeting will be Thursday, February 12, 2015.
32
33 10. ADJOURNMENT
34 The meeting adjourned at 3:48 p.m.
35
36
37 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
Design Review Board March 3, 2015
Page 7
� .. .. � .. ..�fn4,���i�3[�F�d 't�f ... .... ... .
, Michelle Johnson
From: ' Nicholas Thayer <mail@lateafternoan.com>
Sent: Tuesday,'March 03, 2015 9:16 AM
Ta:, AnnBaker Landscape Architecture
Cc: Michelle lohnson
Subject: - Re:PEP Housing review at DRB
Sold! I like the Trident Map1e suggestion.
Thanks,N
Nicholas Thayer
mai l(�a,ratea�ternoon.com
707-462-5133 office
707 3b2-0680 mobile
On Mar 3, 2015, at 9:09 AM,ANN<landarches(a�comcast.net>wrote:
Hmm, the Chitalpa has done well in Calistoga...and the Gingkas have been impossibly
slow. 1 guess site specific is everything. I'm worried the trees will have wet feet in this
site. '
Tridenf Mapies?
Fr�r�: "Ni��olas Thayer"��a61 c,���#e�fter�t�c��.cc��>
To: "Michelle Johnson" Cmi�hns�n ocit �fukiah c�m>, ''Ann Baker�andscape
Architecture° �I�ndarch�sCa�corncas#.nefi>
Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2015 9:05:51 AM
Subject: PEP Nousing review at DRB
Hello Michelle (and Ann),
Best of luck todaywith the Design Review Board. I am sure the revisions will be
well received. I will not be able to attend.
I am very supportive of the architectural and landscape architectural changes,
particularly the permeable paving. I have only two comments on the landscape
revisions (considering 1 was in on some of them!).
+ Parking lot trees in Western parking area far shade'? I do realize that is great
shade on the West side af this parking lot, but maybe a few mare on the East side to
help with Summer heat?
+ Can we use one of the smaller cultivar Ginkgos instead of the messy�hitalpa
for the Eastern parking lot, 'Sarataga' perhaps? Wish we never put that tree on the
approved tree list, messy, gets mildew even in our heat, and look silly for ten years until
it matures. '
i
Michelle Johnson
' From: Nicholas Thayer <mail@lateafternoon.com>
Sent: Tuesday, Macch 03, 2015 9:06 AM
' Ta: Michelle Johnson;Ann Baker Landscape Architecture
Subject: PEP Housing review at DRB
Hella Michelle(and Ann),
Best of luck today with the Design Review Board. I am sure the revisions wi11 be we11 received. I will
not be able to attend.
I am very supportive of the architectural and landscape architectural changes,particularly the permeable
paving. I have only two camments on the landscape revisions (considering I was in on some of them!).
+ Parking lot trees in Western parking area for shade? I do realize that is great shade on the West side
of this parking"lot,but maybe a few more on the East side to he�p with Summer heat?
+ Can we use one of the slnaller eultivar Ginkgos instead of the messy Chitalpa for the Eastern parking
lot, 'Saratoga'perhaps? Wish we never put that tree on the approved tree list, messy, gets mildew even in our
heat, and look silly for ten years until it matures.
Regards,Nick
Nicholas Thayer
mail�,lat�afternoon.com
'707-462-5133 office
707-362-0680 mobi�e
i
G�ity of Zl�ah City of Ukiah, CA
Design Review Board
1
2 MINUTES
3
4 Regular Meeting March 12, 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,
11 Howie Hawkes, Colin Morrow
12
13 Absent: Nick Thayer
14
15 Staff Present: Michelle Johnson, Assistant Planner
16 Kevin Thompson, Principal Planner
17 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
18
19 Others present: Matthew Gilbert
20 Sara Gilbert
21 Stephany Wilkes
22
23 3. CORRESPONDENCE:
24
25 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes from the March 3, 2015 meeting will be
26 available at the April 9, 2015 meeting for review and approval.
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. (Revised) Gilbert Mixed Use Project, 676 South Orchard Avenue (File No.: 37)
35 Review and Recommendation to Planning Commission on a Site Development Permit for
36 a mixed use development that would include the existing single-family home, modification
37 and expansion of the existing garage which would be used for the commercial processing
38 of wool, one food truck with outdoor seating, and modifications to the parking and
39 landscaping at 676 South Orchard, APN 002-320-53. The Project also requires Planning
40 Commission approval of a Major Use Permit to allow mixed residential and commercial
41 use of the parcel.
42
43 Assistant Planner Johnson:
44 • The Project includes the following:
45 ■ Use of the main building as a single-family home;
46 ■ Conversion of the garage to a wool mill (see project description);
47 ■ Conversion of the covered concrete pad to the south of the garage into an
48 enclosed expansion of the wool mill;
49 ■ Construction of an addition to the wool mill on the west elevation;
50 ■ Relocation of the existing cargo container to a location that complies with zoning
51 setbacks;
Design Review Board March 12, 2015
Page 1
1 • Use of the existing cargo container to store products and materials associated
2 with the wool mill (see project description attachment 1; and photos attachment
3 4);
4 ■ Addition of one cargo container to provide additional storage for products and
5 materials associated with the wool mill (see project description attachment 1;
6 and photos attachment 4);
7 • Operation of a food truck in the south portion of the parking lot/front yard with
8 outdoor seating; and
9 • Modifications to the parking area and landscaping, including striping to provide 8
10 standard parking spaces and one van accessible parking space.
11 • The applicant has revised his project based on the DRB comments from the initial review
12 of the Project as well as comments from Planning staff.
13 • Attachment 1 of the staff report is a full project description prepared by the applicant.
14 • Attachment 3 of the staff report is the revised site plan.
15 • The document `Mendocino Wool and Fiber Inc.' is an update/response to the permit
16 application that addresses the `Incompleteness Letter from Planning staff, dated October
17 22, 2014 and is incorporated into the minutes as attachment 1.
18
19 Matthew Gilbert, applicant commented on his revised project:
20 • Project involves three uses: 1) Single Family Residence; 2) The garage to be remodeled
21 to a wool mill; 3) Food truck that fronts S. Orchard Avenue.
22 • Explained how the three uses would work harmoniously on the property.
23 • Referenced the `Mendocino Wool and Fiber Inc.' document that provides a very detailed
24 list of all the project changes to specifically address all the project concerns.
25 • Of importance is the issue raised about the trees/bushes proposed to be planted along
26 the edge of the parking lot in front of the shipping container where it was the opinion of
27 the DRB the species selected would grow too slowly to effectively screen and would not
28 enhance the existing tree in this location. Acknowledged the aforementioned portion of
29 the property is actually the 'prettiest.' A wooden fence will border the back edge of the
30 parking lot and is of the opinion this is a good choice from an aesthetics standpoint.
31 • Related to the issue that the pedestrian circulation to the food truck does not appear to
32 be safe, is specially addressed in response to the Incompleteness Letter in the
33 `Mendocino Wood and Fiber Inc.' document on page 5.
34 • While the photo rendering of the site and accompanying uses is not entirely accurate, it
35 provides an idea of what the site will look like when the project is complete.
36
37 DRB auestions/comments related to:
38 Pedestrian Circulation and Food Truck
39 On-site Traffic Circulation
40 Signage
41 Noise Impacts
42 Existing Travel Trailer
43 Planter Boxes
44 Front Fence
45 Bicycle Parking
46
47 Member Hawkes:
48 • Asked about the food truck and whether it will remain stationery on the site?
49 • Related to the photo rendering of the site, asked if the site would look more or less like
50 the picture?
51 • Requested clarification the wool mill industry is a labor intensive process.
52 • Finds there are many ways to mitigate sound.
53 • Likes the metal planters that look like cattle feeding/water troughs.
54
Design Review Board March 12, 2015
Page 2
1 Member Morrow:
2 • Will the wool mill use generate traffic on site and/or will it be light traffic?
3 • Will people be coming to the site to drop off the wool?
4 • Asked about noise impacts and how the ambient level can be measured. Further asked
5 about the information from a comparable wool mill having similar equipment that
6 reported at 50 ft. from the equipment through a 2 x 6 wall, the decibel level is similar to
7 the ambient level and inquired where this testing was conducted. Was the wool mill
8 located in rural setting versus and a dense industrial area?
9 • Requested clarification the ambient levels are comparable.
10 • It is likely the project should be conditioned to address noise complaints requiring the
11 applicant to explore mitigation measures.
12 • Requested clarification the planter boxes will shelter the seating area although this is
13 indicated differently on the site plans and commented it might be beneficial to do
14 something by either moving the planters in and around the seating area or put bollards in
15 this location to prevent vehicles from coming right up where people are sitting and
16 eating.
17 • Asked about the location of a bicycle rack.
18 • Asked about sewer connection for the food truck and/or will the truck be serviced offsite?
19
20 Vice Chair Liden:
21 • Asked about the travel trailer on the site?
22 • Signage on the site would be much more effective without having a double sign for the
23 food truck and the regular sign for the wool mill. Is of the opinion double signage is
24 confusing and looks somewhat `cluttered.' Is there a way to put a sign on the truck? Is of
25 the opinion having the truck sign as a secondary sign included with the wool mill sign
26 draws from the wool mill sign. Would like to see separate signs and have a really nice
27 looking sign for the wool and fiber company without the truck sign. Supports having a
28 sign for the wool and fiber business and a sign on the food truck that essentially
29 emphasizes the separateness of the businesses.
30 • Would like more information about the wool mill equipment related to potential noise
31 impacts.
32 • Will the fence along the front property line be replaced?
33
34 Member Nicholson:
35 • Related to signage while wanting to maintain some type of continuity between the wool
36 mill and the food truck uses may want to consider how to keep the message clear about
37 the separateness of the businesses. As it is, the food truck use dominates the wool mill
38 use even though the Wool mill sign is larger. May want to integrate the signage in some
39 fashion that maintains continuity but indicates there are a number of businesses
40 operating on the site rather than having the signs compete with one another.
41 • Asked about the sign process.
42 • How did the grease trap get to the rear of the property when the sewer line goes out the
43 front of the property?
44
45 Matthew Gilbert:
46 • The food truck will be rented out to a vendor and will not be a permanent structure on the
47 site.
48 • The rendering shows the concept and placement of the buildings/food truck/planter
49 areas/signage/parking and/or general layout of the site. What is not demonstrated well in
50 the rendering is that there is actually space between the planters and the food truck
51 where people can circulate, but is clearly shown in the revised site plans. The driveway
52 isle is supposed to be a 24-foot minimum and has been widened.
53 • Confirmed traffic for the wool mill will be light. There will be three or four employees that
54 will come and go per shift.
Design Review Board March 12, 2015
Page 3
1 • People will access the site to drop off wool, but it will be infrequent.
2 • The wool mill industry is labor intensive, but the associated equipment is what makes the
3 process work effectively and commented on the process.
4 • Referred to page 2 of the `Mendocino Wool Fiber Inc.' document that addresses the issue
5 of noise and noted based on the best available information, is of the opinion the project
6 will not significantly alter the decibel level at any of the property lines and explained the
7 factors/measures taken and/or in place to help mitigate noise. The wool mill that provided
8 the information cited in the `Mendocino Wool Fiber Inc.' document was the only source he
9 could find that would give him noise data related to operating similar machinery and
10 reported that at 50 feet from the equipment through a 2 X 6 wall, the decibel level is
11 similar to the ambient level. Confirmed the wool mill that supplied the noise information is
12 located a rural area (100-acre ranch).
13 • Related to ambient levels, while comparable, it is likely the ambient level on S. Orchard
14 Avenue would be significantly higher than what the rural wool mill experiences.
15 • No one lives in the travel trailer and is used for storage.
16 • The truck sign could be on the truck, but the disadvantage of this is when the tree is fully
17 leafed the truck cannot be effectively seen northbound.
18 • It may help to put the food truck sign and the wool mill sign in the same frame.
19 • The food sign does not necessary have to be on the truck but rather a sandwich board
20 sign on the sidewalk next to the mailboxes.
21 • The sign for the food truck could be put between the fence and the sidewalk.
22 • Related to information regarding the wool mill equipment, the equipment manufacturer is
23 no longer in operation so he is unable to get technical manuals that address the decimal
24 level. Based on the information received from the comparable wool and fiber mill
25 business noise would pretty much end at the property line so any neighbor on the other
26 side of the fence would not hear any noise.
27 • Questioned how a decimal level test can be conducted without the equipment being
28 functional until the project is approved.
29 • Referred to the revised site plan (attachment 3) and noted most of the back wall that is
30 closed to the neighbors is the bathroom so it is like having another room with an extra set
31 of walls. Confirmed there will be new 2 x 6 wall construction and well-built so noise
32 should not be an issue. In the event noise is an issue, can take measures to mitigate the
33 sound.
34 • The front fence is pre-existing and intends to replace it in another phase.
35 • Related to the planter boxes and seating area could implement a wheel stopper to
36 prevent vehicles from coming upon and/or backing up in and around the seating/dining
37 area.
38 • It was noted site plan keynotes #9 on the revised site plans indicates the designated
39 bicycle parking area.
40 • Explained the reason for the location of the grease trap and confirmed there will be a
41 solid waste line extending underneath the building.
42 • The food truck will be serviced offsite.
43
44 Assistant Planner Johnson:
45 • There could potentially be zoning issues associated with having a sandwich board on the
46 sidewalk.
47 • Related to the issue of potential noise impacts has knowledge it is possible to conduct a
48 decimal check for compliance with City noise standards by using a special machine. The
49 measuring of decimal levels will likely be required for the Wool Mill project before the
50 project is reviewed by the Planning Commission to make certain the project is consistent
51 with City noise standards and not cause potential noise impacts to the neighborhood. If
52 the noise standards are not properly met, will have to look at mitigation measures to
53 offset the sound impact.
Design Review Board March 12, 2015
Page 4
1 • Does not have an answer about how to conduct a decimal level test without the
2 equipment functional.
3 • The applicant would have to go through a sign permit process separate from the mixed
4 use project. Would like input and a recommendation from the DRB regarding the signage.
5 • Explained the applicant worked with the Public Works Department regarding his project
6 needs related to sewer, etc.
7
8 DRB auestions/comments related to:
9 Building Facade
10
11 Vice Chair Liden:
12 • Asked about plans for the facade of the wool mill building.
13 • Looking at the color rendering, sees the facade as having a western theme and
14 questioned whether this should be the approach.
15 • It may be the problem is the color of the building.
16 • Recalls that Chair Hise at the initial DRB review of the Project talked about material
17 features that could be added to enhance the appearance.
18 • Asked if the roof was pitched would the siding match/work?
19 • Because the wool mill building is a fake facade having that `stepped western appearance'
20 is not certain a fake pitched roof facade would look more fake. While the building will
21 feature a fake facade is of the opinion that the stepped western looking facade kind of
22 works with perhaps a different color scheme.
23 • Asked if Member Nicholson would like to see the Project again if there was a change in
24 the design.
25
26 Member Nicholson:
27 • The initial discussion concerning the facade by the DRB acknowledged there was too
28 much distinction between the buildings and was not pleased with the appearance of the
29 building during this discussion concerning the building facade/shape. There was
30 significant opposition to the square western facade where the preferred elevation was to
31 have a pitched roof that reinforced architectural compatibility of the existing house.
32 • Is of the opinion the square western facade reinforces the inappropriateness of this
33 architectural design. While there are a few of these western facade designs for buildings
34 in town that essentially do not fit well with the existing `fabric' finds the proposed elevation
35 does not match any of the buildings in the neighborhood and cannot support the western
36 facade design. The roof is out of design context with the residential building on the site
37 and buildings in the neighborhood. Does understand the reason for the design concept
38 since the wool mill building is a factory and a western facade design works with that of an
39 industrial use so having a disharmonious design separates/distinguishes the industrial
40 use from the residential use.
41 • Preference would be for the building not to have `the steps,' but rather have a `box'
42 design. This design would be more in keeping with the post office building and motel in
43 the neighborhood.
44 • The issue is not the color of the building but rather the shape.
45 • Recalls at the initial DRB discussion of the Project Chair Hise said the buildings should
46 either match architecturally or not.
47 • Sees the proposed design working adequately in Covelo, Anderson Valley, but not on
48 Orchard Avenue in an urban setting.
49 • Is okay with a pitch roof appearance and finds this design would match with the storage
50 container design.
51 • Whatever occurs for the wool mill building the facade is a false front that is visually
52 apparent. Better approach would be to have flat facade that extends to a pitched top that
53 meets building code requirements.
Design Review Board March 12, 2015
Page 5
1 • Referred to attachment 2, City of Ukiah Commercial Development Design Guidelines
2 Project Review Checklist for Commercial Projects outside the Downtown Design District,
3 Page 2 Visual Appearance, says, `buildings are visually cohesive, compatible and
4 complementary (scale, proportion, design, style, heights, mass, setbacks)'and `buildings
5 exhibit variety and distinctiveness (but avoid overly obtrusive or over monotonous
6 designs, or strong contrast with adjacent buildings, creative use of natural and recycled
7 materials, metal discouraged unless creative and consistent with Guidelines),'and noted
8 these questions are supposed to be addressed. Cannot say `yes' to these questions
9 relevant to the stepped facade. While the proposal exhibits variety and distinctiveness
10 finds the facade visually not cohesive, compatible or complementary to the neighborhood
11 and therefore, cannot support the stepped western facade, as presented.
12 • The Planning Commission will make the final decision about the Project. If the applicant
13 has an alternate plan he would like to take to the Planning Commission would be fine
14 with not seeing the Project again and let the Planning Commission decide. His
15 recommendation is not to use the proposed design. Recommended the applicant talk to
16 Planning staff about alternative design concepts.
17
18 Stephanie Wilkes:
19 • Asked about a facade alternative.
20 • The building would be easy to `square off.'
21 • Could prepare something with three different facade designs.
22
23 DRB noted the aforementioned alternative cannot occur because of the need for a firewall.
24
25 Member Hawkes:
26 • Asked about the firewall and its effect on the elevation.
27 • Talked about the concept of a pitched roof. The barn-look would be an acceptable design
28 on the site and for the wool mill use.
29 • The fake stepped western facade would likely work, but should likely have a different
30 color scheme.
31
32 Member Morrow:
33 • Having the buildings with somewhat distinctive designs sets the character as being more
34 `industrial' than the other residential uses on Orchard Avenue.
35
36 Matthew Gilbert:
37 • Referred to the site plans the concern of the DRB at the initial review of the Project was
38 whether or not the wool mill building would be distinctive enough from the residential unit.
39 • His intent was to have to separate and distinct building elevations.
40 • Finds that the western facade architecturally flows with the post office across the street
41 that has a square shape.
42 • Recalls the DRB's initial discussion concerning his project was that the wool mill building
43 should 'sort of' match the residential unit, but not really.
44 • Talked about the design requirements in connection with the firewall and noted the
45 parapet must be three feet tall above the eve.
46 • Related to having a squared-shape building, would result in 15 feet of free standing wall
47 and questioned whether this would work. This would somehow have to be tied back into
48 the roof.
49 • Related to the architectural design of the wool mill building for him was not necessarily
50 the industrial component of it, but rather that wool has been around and a major part of
51 Ukiah for a long time. The intent was to make the building look as though the wool mill
52 has been around for a long time.
53
54 Assistant Planner Johnson:
Design Review Board March 12, 2015
Page 6
1 • Applicant has photographs of other facade design concepts that could be used on the
2 wool mill building.
3 • The project can be brought back for further review if this is the preference of the DRB.
4 The facade is a significant element and a major component of the Project.
5
6 Member Hawkes:
7 • Supports DRB approve the Project with recommendations to the Planning Commission.
8
9 M/S Hawkes/Nicholson DRB approve the Project, as presented with the recommendation that
10 the facade be considered `influx' at this point and that the applicant bring some other design
11 options to the Planning Commission and to make it clear the DRB was not 100% in favor of this
12 particular aspect of the Project. (Motion carried 4-0).
13
14 Member Nicholson:
15 • Applicant did a good job describing the Project both graphically and with the narrative
16 that fully explains the intent of the Project.
17
18 7B. Jared Hull Use Permit for Single Family Residence — Hillside Project, 315 Janix
19 Drive (File No.: 707): Review and recommendation to Planning Commission on a Use
20 Permit to construct a 1,997 square foot single family residence and 795 square foot
21 attached garage at 315 Janix Drive, APN 001-040-73. The exterior would include earth
22 tone painted stucco siding, a metal roof, and landscaping. The site is accessed by an
23 existing private asphalt paved road. Since the property is located in the Hillside District,
24 Planning Commission review and approval of a use permit is required for new
25 construction.
26
27 Assistant Planner Johnson:
28 • Referred to the staff report and accompanying attachments 1, 2 and 3 that provides a
29 project description, visual renderings that are intended to show what the Project would
30 look like from the Valley floor from Alex Thomas Jr. Plaza, copies of the proposed color
31 schemes and materials, site plans, and hydrology report.
32 • Explained the history of the Hull/Piffero subdivision.
33 • The applicant is not present.
34
35 The DRB acknowledged the Project but did not review the Project and/or make comments in
36 detail.
37
38 DRB:
39 • Asked to see a colors and materials board.
40 • Requested the applicant provide more information about the Project details as to
41 elevations, water/sewer infrastucture, colors/materials, landscaping, etc. and with
42 possibly visiting the site with the applicant and have a discussion.
43 • Would like more information regarding the Hillside zoning district regulations concerning
44 development.
45 • Asked about how many of the remaining lots of the Hull/Piffero subdivision are buildable/
46 can be developed.
47 • Provide accurate visual renderings/simulations showing the location of the proposed new
48 residents and what it would look like from various locations on the Valley floor.
49 • Requests applicant come back to the DRB for a more comprehensive look at the Project.
50
51 7. MATTERS FROM THE BOARD:
52 Asked if the DRB would be willing to have another special meeting on March 26, 2015 at 3:00
53 p.m. to review preliminary plans for a new Chapole restaurant in the City.
54
Design Review Board March 12, 2015
Page 7
1 The DRB would be amenable to having a special meeting on March 26.
2
3 8. MATTERS FROM STAFF:
4
5 9. SET NEXT MEETING
6 The next regular meeting will be Thursday, April 9, 2015.
7
8 10. ADJOURNMENT
9 The meeting adjourned at 3:48 p.m.
10
11
12 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
Design Review Board March 12, 2015
Page 8
; �
, ,
��
��,� ` �
,`< �
• �
�:f: �
�. �
�
��
� ��
,
� �
� � �
� � �°^�`��+;
- . � t
� ����,� � �
���
�1� �
L
a.�,h�WR � �*+? � . � .
if '�� ^ ,, n �
(�y a
...... . .. . ... � ...�� .... {4 � � � � �M6u+ai& ........
�
'�S,R."±x:S��3 .. . ..e , `.. .
j� m
"xthU#� ... � .� M�, V.v�; '�` 1"E'
. ..... . . .�� ..� i a, .
. . . � � ��� � � � ..
.. ... . <n ��� ... . . � . . ' . .. .
>
. . . . . ,.:.�+u . . ; �- .
�'
. . . . ,.�: �`aia�aw� �" . , �, ..,.�' . .
r ;
.. . . ,. .' ,.�.. ,
.� � � � . ... . . . . ��..��ro . .. . � .v �. ..
. ' . .. � � �seoev�e+a� �*�r�n��e . � � .
. . . . � ' ' - '. �,. .
.... � . � . ' .. . . . . .
.. .. .. .. �+*.t�`�.�,„eaa � . �� . :,,u��.., "a� .
.. . .. � . � . . . ..� s� ... . . . .. � , ..
� ��n�
B
� � . . . � . . ��� .. � � . ���rnaa .
. . .. . . . � . .. . . � �� . . .. ...... . �� . .
�.���� �'��� ���.
. . � . . . . . . �� ;,��� � .. . .
.� � .. . �� � . .. .� .. .. .. ..�`�'`�`� � : .. . . _�� � . . .. .
a
� a��m��ss . .
��� < �
... .... � .. .. t%�'�;yuvpP� . Y!�S4Y . . ... �a�� .",.
. . . . . ... .. . �'��'�a�,a,�..i�s � t� �, .. `
��� �� � ��
����� � y �«
�,�� �_.._ �
��. � ._:,
.. . . � . . . � ��3`��TY� A."Sl'��"::i',aA . . . .... .. . ��..�
. . . .. ... . ... "k�a"d@."R,vu't� . .. .. . ` . .
.. . . . . � b'�'a"i",�\1`v"*�'� . � . . .. .... . .. ���
. . . . . . . . � � . � . t �
. . . . ... . ... .. . . . . � �:° =m.aw� .. ..
..... � . .. . � . ... . .� .. . . . ..... . . ..... . .. .. .... ��� .. .
... . . � . .. . . ��s:�k
� ... .. . . � . � �...:,�
.. . . . � .... .. . .�
�.
. .... ..... .. . . ....... ..... . ...... .. . ...... ... ....... � . .... .... . .. . . .. .��.
{
. .. . ..... ....... . . .:Y ... . . ... .... . ..... . ... . . .... .... ... . ....
a
. .� oeosw a'�7vnww.0 4 � . '��`��t�� � ..� .
�A . �c oa a a�aa a �sr.i. . � .9nueny p��y�JO yl�aS�JG9 � ° �.. ..
(.) cx.<se4<4aia�i�anw NV1d210Q�j � � �
� � a3�Na�oa�o�„va •�u�aaqi�pue�ooN}oui�opuaW a � n „
fa
�
C
N °'
'''`,,�
.�
� �- µ
� � ix�
�
� �'
�
� `�
.� z�
� � Y.�
� � �� ���
� � T
� � �
\V FS
� � .� . . `� . . ._S . . .
\l
�♦ . .. ... .l.': .
... .. . �V/�! . � � ... . � . . .. . . �,,�
.. � � .. ..Yp�. .. . . . . � . . . . .. ,_.�
i,_�
. . .`V ,. . . ... ._.'.
.. . .... � . . ... . . .. <.. . . ... ... . .. . .
.. . . � � ,. �. . .
. � .� .. � . . . . . � . ... .
O
. .... . . . . .. ..o . ... ..��... ... ... .... . .... .. . . . .. .. .
. ... � . � . � � . . � . . � .. .. . � � . .
W
� �
� . �� • . . . � � .. . .
V �
� �
♦�
�
.. . o •.O .. .. .... .. ..� . . . . . . ..
. . ... .� �„' . .. . .. . . . .. . . . � . . 1�� ..
^1 W �l
W/��
Wy� � E fi
.Y� �"�� � . �__
�
O � . � � � Y:i. . �
� � i�t. ....
� .� n, . .. . . �� . . . .. . � :�
��� •��y N p � . . . . . . � � � .
� ��
. .. . ..V ...i lW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ..
. .. ....� .. �^, � � . . � . . ..... ... . . . .. .. . . .
. W y � . . . .. . . .. .. .. ..
.. . . ... � � . . . .. . . .. .... . � . .. ... ... . .. ... ..
� .. � \ . � � � � �
•
, , �
; �^
. � � � � �
_
S2 � � � � � `�' �3 � q„?
� � .� *fC� `'�°� ��' '�
x ,_ 4.,�
� .?
t/� �
N �, � .� � � � � .� � �
�, �- � � � � � � �
� � � �
�o °� � .�
�� ,� � � � � �., � � ,� `� .�
� � �, � � � �
� �'
� � ° R
� .� �_
l� � +' � � �' �' +� � � �
� o `�
� t/� N "_
� �� � � � � � � ,�
� � `_ � � � � � � � � �
t� — � �
� '}-' a °.�' .
. _,
.�...� � s— � � .�, �, ..� cn s.� �" �
� (� � m� c.�— � � � .�, � (� C�
� O
.a� � V7 v°a � �
N � � � � � � � p� � � �
•N � �+ � � c.J �°- Q;► �
Q � $� cr�
� �
tB � � � °�°°' �Q � � � �
� _ � `cra � �
� �} ,� ,�.
� > a�
3 � �3 C� � � � "� f� � � -�
v � � � �. � � � �
� �� ,m e� �
,� � o�
� �
O � �
�
� N � o�
.� � ^ `
t� � ,
tl.► � � � .
Z5 +� > � ,� � � .�-+ c�i � e t'� � �
� � �
G '— �
, �
C�.i N � � .
N � � —
.—, _ ��
� N � o � .,�
N N v � — �
^ � � � «� ,� .
I— . �
: : ca .�
•
� � �
,�,i
�
�
� �
� � � �
+�.+ � � � d' Q
4-
`'S �U � � vy
�
f0
� � � �
� � � �
Q �'; �,
�1 � � Q
N � � � � � �
� _ � � `r' ° °
� � N N , �,
� � �
Q7 •—
� � � �
� � 'c� O _
4J O � �
� � Q � `rV Op
� � ' N tll �
� N �
P� � `� � � �
�., O cv
.�..� � Q , t„� �-' ' c.' �
i
/"1 1 �°°'' a� � ca 4- P`'�
ti�l�✓ s� �' ��., n O �
`t � t�
�� � �
.�- U .�,
�
a�, u' aJ
VJ � �
� •> _ �' � �
_ �
� � � � � � � Q �
�
� � N � � �
� '� ._
�
�
� L � � �
� L .� v�
V ' N �A
� � 0 � 0 �
L
� — � � � � �
� � ..c t— c � ,�' � �
� .� � � , O �
� C� U m � �
�
� � � �
O
� � ' � �
� ' � �
� j 11J � ; � �
�.J � �' _ a.~°
a} '�'
� � � �
u� +.�, � '
� �
:c ', � `'-
+-+ tn � i
� �
� �
...�'�..i .. ..
�
^
W. .. �..... .. ...... . .... . ..... �..... ...... ....... ........ �. ... � .......
�
� � �
y � � �
{^q �
V � �
� � �
� n� o
� W`' �
� ..... . ... ......� i .. . ... .�� ... . ........
� .....� � o�...... .�
� � � � ^
� � L
� � � 6,�.. � Q .
.
t,.� ' � �' Q.
� � � t�.�
N � � i
. � � � � a-�+
� . � •�, e� Q �
� � ._ S�„ .�
� Q ,� � � �
�
cu � � � �
'�f a f2 C1.1 � � �
� L .e..,R a°'a
� � � N �
� � � N
� � � ,� �
p � m �—
t�0 � �
� � N � Q ,� ,� t,� � �
Z� -� CUp � v �
Q,t � � � ,_
V � � � �
ta i � �
� � t6 \ tU
v� � � � � �
� N
C ,� � � • � �
'� � Cll � — �- � �+-+ +-+
L V � 1 O 6� o
t� U � •
� Q � � ' � � Qi � �
� p� � � � �
_ ' • .O .O
v � � � � � �
� ' -� � ca tc.�
� j o� O � � �
O O
� 11J � 'N .i� i'� d�o, Q) � t1J .v
� � +� � � N c� � � °�-'
+-+ p � � •—• +� �
N � � � � d,) �5 �S
� � V � O � Q
� .�
� � H � Z Q � �
+-+ : : � : v� : :
O I I I I I I I I I I
:
•
I
; �
0
� . . � � . .... . . ... ....
� `� � � r� ��. e� �� . . .
� �
� � •�
�� L
' .V � 1 �.. ..
. � �/ � s�.. ' . .
C6 V c.�
�+ � fB °
u� � � , � � QJ
� � � a_. ,
� � � '�
Q„ p � :� '� ;�.
� � � .m
� o �
� � .,�. . ..� o
N � +' .� �
� O :s-- �°
•o � o � .�, .,�
� � .� vNi '� c"�i9 � � � � � �. °�' .�.
tl�J � t,�
"�"� F— N� CLJ qJ � �`+ "� a + S� t� � �
Q . U ,� «�
+'' `�/
� f0
�
N L �
� �,� � .� '
� -� �,
ca o �
,?� .
.�
� � � � � � tt5 �' � � � � �� � � ��"' �
� � �
Na"' '�
O �' +-' '°�
� O C � p� (� � � :�.., � � m � �� � �
. G � � � � � .�, � �
'� O � �
� �
v� '�' ,
O V c{"'n s�
� O � O �°' �+ � � tY"a � �� � t� � � � �
Q� N � � c� � �
� � � �
v� +-' N '
� O �
. +-+
� � p A�
� •— � ..�
� � V �,,,a � �2 �; o� � CL� � � ,� � � �
� � t� � ,� c.3 .� >.,,�
N � N � � � � � � � � �
� �
�—+, .°�
•� '� tU
� � ,� Q.� ,o e�
� � � � � � � �
. � i t,r� ,
• �
}
�y�
', a ltd
•� . . .:.� �. .. .... .. �. � ...... ........ ..... .... .
� .a� . a� � <�
{ � � iN
� � � ♦mai
, � � �
�
� � m� � �
,� � � � od.. :o
�
� � � � .� ,� .
� Q �N � � � .�, � �
� � ..�. � ,� � � '� � � � ^�
� ,�,, � � � � � .,�"", , .�. �,
� � � � � � �
O Q � � � .� �
� r� �
�F-�+ ,� � � � ��
� � � � v� y�
� .m �
��
� � f]J cr' t�3 Q.r � � � � � Q .�
� � � � � � � �
t� _
o � 'v � � �
N � � � �
� � � � �
+, — vs �
cn '�' � �
c� a� .�. �
� � � � � � .— .�. e_.
� � � � � � � �
� �
� +V ,� � t�, � � °°° °
.i-+ N � .�
ta i�. � � � 'i�
� � � �
�1-' 0 4J y� ..�.
� � � � � �
„� ,
t� •m � ',�,
c� � � a,� � ao � � vi � � �a �
Q � � � � � � �
l'�0 tU � �
� .cn � � � � .� .�
�Q > � �
V � � � �
� � m +� � � � . �� ,� �
.� fl1 —°
�
f� � � �11 � �
� � � � ,� .m
� ^ .�, � �
fB � � . � ,,� � �
� , � v� �; �
� q � � � � .�
�o � � t° � F- cn .�
� o � � I I I � Q�
�.. _.
� c0 v
• +� �
� �
; .r..
. .,
, Y �
s �i� � �
, � , �. �
, �� �
, . t
� e,
:
I Y
`!,.`"`�vni t` .
s
c��
��Xir�..hiz U.. ..
ti�� �
� ..:....... ... ... .. `.'. � � ,,.�. .. .......... .
S 4SVh
�s Sy a
� �
h�AY y
;�;'^�',�`i'�z+�E'�- , d°�� .
`a, pt.�...S.w. �.,;.,.
\�+U.�l 3;'x1i�k {FF14kY`\'':
i . ..,';,�o``�.".` „iYi` � � ..
.. ',4ti, . . .
,.��.'^. ���t"ti��.
. �Sa4 . �.,.�'�j`.
� � ti:��''-`��+, �.W`�':`:cX;:, ao�,
. . .. ''ye�3. .���.� rp. . .
� �
. . z.,u, � � �
.... .� .�� '��
'. � , tr �. . - .,
: ����t
L.5'� t\4# f'�
?��k`�v�7E*:X���y����� l.�s
�'�""�tN,,��'^r�,�"� L',��.`..�; �'..
�.
�Sx. ��,�.�
�� �
t '�'���4�ti�� �;�„e
t ,,�� s ��° �
�,, t.,.u,,����,���>„•� �
� <��:
s ���� �*;<�4
, �
�� �
� a�^�+�
� " °
, �f �«, �������
� � .��� � .��.��.� , . " � � ���'�� �'�,�
'� z�t.r<�, �,������,�..�,
j', ��?�i���a��.
� ����������;r m•�.
�x :��a
v�
4? �w�"z`;
�a„
y't
,� �� `� '� �
�
����;.� �a �
�� � °` �`�. : i �'
,. s � �` �; � c,.�:�
���� � 4� � � * ��:
.. ,�� � .. . :�.....�`�� �° �:���. s.. A �"" .�sa',�7:Ya�
.e.. .. ��., .. -,:. rt . ��. � �
v
� . .. � 3A� a . ��.
�
b.�;,:.: � s a��q,� ����ti� �p � j�� ,i�,,,ir,� s�- ��
, ,
�
�.a �,
��. ��` �� ������ 4 �������4';��'���' �� � � ��_�
� �� �� ,� '� � �
. .. . ,,
*�
���;u�.�� �� �
�..�� �, _
� �x
n �,:> ��
� �
� �
�t � �
`� � �, � �
� �.,.�_, O �,, �
�x �
�
,�,
���� ������:
� ��� : ���.
Vwa���`�� � ,� �; ��`� �;. �� '��a�
�
� � i
i .� � Q
O
.�-+ � C1J � t� � �
-� � � � CIJ t� (� �
O � «. � +�
� �> �
: � �. ° �
� � O
o p � O
.� ._ �
� � � � � � � � � �
C� +�.+ a�,
� � � ;
c� ., ;
L � . o • ,
� � � o �
Q f� °�r .� ,� � � � ,}�-+ c/! .�'i
Q � �
C.? '.�'
Ct3 m {.d � qa � � N � �
cu � � °' � �, �- � �
� � � � �
I— •j O
� � � v
, ..�. . .� ,�
n , � � 8� � � t� ,� - r� cn �-
W cJ �� t� �-+ •-
� � � u� �� � `� � '�"' N � �
.� .� ° � � .o
O � �� o �N �
� �
O CJ� � � o �
U � t�
+-+ o �
� � � � �
4- 0 6 0 �y �
O � � � '„�,
cn +� � �
� N ° N Q. �
O .v� � �`
� � o �
i'�. � aJ �2 O
i
O � .� � � v
._ , � ._,
.�-+ �S � � O C�0
t!3 � N L �
O � � vo � X
L , • z
� � � � �
� � !� � �
.N i C� � �
� ,�, � � � qA �
Z� p � � . � � •� ^� � � � t'�
� �
•o � "� � '�
� ,
� .� o � �
• •
�
:
.� � e� �
i �
�
� � �
� � • � �
� + � � N � � �
'� � � � � c./"3 C� � � � �
�
t6 -� .
�A C7 �,�,
: a.�.
o .� � �
CU � .�2 .� '°" � � _ `�' °� °�°
�„ • � <� � c� � � p �— .�..,
' � 4 � ..�p¢�q � ea.��
O � ! �, � .14d �° . � •m .tbR
ya
�i
(l.. .�
4�
� �
� � .� , �. ("Q �
� �� � �
� � � � t.� � ° � � � �}
� � � � _
� �
a a •—
V � � � � .�, � � � � � Q � CU
� a-+ = cn
C� .N � va °�° � �
� .� —
� � � �
.,.�.. � � � � � � � •� ! � �
(�� � _ � �
V 1
, „m.. .
+J t.1 Cl� � `+°"' � u� ,t12 f6 � � � Q�g � C!d
� � � �.
QJ
.F, � +-+ � e�
� � � ,°` � c"�
+�-+ � � .�
c� v� p� � a� � ON
f�
0 2� Q +�+
:�,, cn .� :�:� �
� � � Q Q �� ��
'L +-+ � '� �
C.3 o V a�.
(n � tn � �
-� � � � � � � ...� � � � �„ � �
�-+ � ,� V �
� � �
•�+ � °, � •o tn
� � � � �- � �
' �
N ('L5 � Z$ (1..
E'° �} � E— � a""
: > � � �
• � • ft
�
a v�
Q � � cn
, � � � � � �
tn O � � � �
� � �
� � � � �
� � a � � v Qj
6 �
'� N� c�s �'a '� .� � � � �
� � .� � ' 3 N � ..,_
� — � _ � O u�
O � :� i -� _ '�
°��t '� a1 � a �" .� p
tZ � •— ° .
� � m� 0 ,�, � � .V
L� � � � �" � � � � � � �
+-' '� + Q} S—
O + + — � �t}
� , (� a.�„ = a-+ d�
._ Q
� ;+� � � v zs
.�? 'S � � � � O �
a.,� e� � � +.,
.� �.., i� � � 4— �
c6 � � . �
u � � � ° � �
� .�
�N � � � o � �
o '� .
� � � � ��
�+— � ., � �.
QO � .�., °�°' � .� � �� 0 � Q;� t� �
m� �
s_ � � � U `a .s2. � �
� •— ,.n
O N � q� v >•
� S� � � :�. r q
� �'i � �, � �-,:�, �- � �, � b� � .� O 4�i � „�,
V J � � � o : �
� .�.
� � � � � p � i
� � V � � � � �
4= O � :�_,+ � .� � •o �
� � � °� � � � � �
O T�
T3
;L5 � � �" O : � � ~
� O V � — •� N � � � 4)
� � . � V O +r
� o � "�" � � � � •�
i'� � .� o � °� � � {U �° � '°`
�i' � Z� ' '�"' �� °� c� � � +�-+
u�i o "o � z .� � `
N .�,
tU '� tU � � � � ' ,�-+ Q
'� � N �- � � � � � Q� �` CU � � �
t'�'.,� N .� a� � � � +-+
fll � � (� N � � � .�
,O_� N � � � N � �
S._ 7• ;+�' � � U ?� � %r ��-
� � 'i'' s�° N � ,� � � O � � a m
� �-� � � . F� � N CU � C2. � ;
� � � bA t11 S2. ,°
~ � .-��, �°' C7 c�a ,� I— Q i�. c� �a
• . .
1 ITEM NO. 6A
Community Development and Planning Department
G'ity of Zl�ah 300 Seminary Avenue
Ukiah, CA 95482
planninq c(�.cityofukiah.com
(707)463-6203
2
3 DATE: March 26, 2015
4
5 TO: Design Review Board
6
7 FROM: Michelle Johnson, Assistant Planner
8
9 SUBJECT: Request for Preliminary Review and Recommendations on a Site Development
10 Permit application for a Chipotle's Mexican Grill Restaurant located at 596 East
11 Perkins on the NW corner of the East Perkins Street/Orchard Avenue
12 intersection.
13 APN 002-200-38
14 File No.: Munis 842
15
16
17 REQUEST
18
19 Staff requests the Design Review Board conduct a Preliminary Review and make
20 recommendations to the Applicant on a Site Development Permit application.
21
22 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
23
24 The proposed project involves the construction of a 2,000 square foot Chipotle Mexican Grill
25 restaurant on the vacant parcel located at 596 East Perkins on the northwest corner of East
26 Perkins Street and Orchard Avenue. Site improvements include on -site parking and
27 landscaping are also proposed, as is outdoor dining along both street frontages.
28
29 The Downtown Zoning Code identifies the proposed building as a "side-yard" building type, in
3o that it occupies one side of the lot and uses a "shop-front" frontage type setback from the
31 sidewalk to allow for outdoor dining on both frontages.
32
33 ANALYSIS
34
35 General Plan. The General Plan land use designation of the parcel is Commercial. This land
36 use designation identifies lands where commerce and business may occur. Residential uses are
37 included as examples of allowable uses within the Commercial designation. Specific Uses are
38 precisely defined through the uses allowed in the individual zoning districts.
39
40 The project site is located within an area identified as a Primary level gateway in the City's
41 General Plan.
Preliminary Review
Chipotle Mexican Grill—Site Development Permit
NW corner of East Perkins Street and Orchard Avenue
March 26,2015 Design Review Board Meeting
File No.:
1
1
2 Zoning. The zoning for this parcel is UC (Urban Center) — Downtown Zoning Code. The
3 application is seeking a number of exceptions from the Urban Center standards and therefore a
4 Major Site Development Permit is required. These exceptions include: 1) One-story rather than
5 the mandatory two-stories; 2) The project proposed more than the Maximum allowed parking; 3)
6 the proposed building is not parallel to the principal frontage line for 70% of its length. It is
7 possible that additional exceptions may be identified through the review process.
8
9 Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan. The project is located in the B2 Infill area Airport
10 Compatibility Zone and is therefore subject to compatibility zone requirements, which include a
11 maximum of 90 people per acre on the site at any one time.
12
13
14 Attachments:
15
16 1. Project Plans
17 2. Downtown Zoning Code Architectural and Landscaping Design Standards
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Preliminary Review
Chipotle Mexican Grill—Site Development Permit
NW corner of East Perkins Street and Orchard Avenue
March 26,2015 Design Review Board Meeting
File No.:
2
RED MAPLE,TYP. — �
TRASH ENCLOSURE � � SITE ACCESS
� �
I� I II
� I I SYCAMORE,TYP.
� I O
i NATIVE SHRUBS
� � &TURF,TYP.
— - - -� -
�_ - - - - �
� � �� ,;
� °� ° �
� ����
�� � °�
� � ���� .
aaaaa�� °
ACCESSIBLE PARKING � �
0;., ,, �;e; ,_.� PLANTER&
r � � , PATIO AREA
�
SITE ACCESS _----
1-----—-- SITE PLAN
� 1"=30'-0"
FHA
. .
14344"Y"STREET CH I POTLE ��P�T�
SUITE NO.204 V fn
OMAHA,NE 68137-2805 UKIAH �
TEL: 402.895.0878 � F �
FAX: 402.895.9561 03/19/2015 +�A N Gav
www.f h aarch itects.co m
\
I
�I I
�
SERVICE ENTRANCE
I o° °� I
I � �
I �
I
I KITCHEN
�
� � �� �
OFFICE � ° �
� ��
z
� ❑ ❑
O �
� �
� �bt �,-��n PATIO SEATING
1�pt L��CJ �
o �
� � � � _
MEN� � � � � �
— C� - �
� � � � � �
� �� � ��
� � � � , , I
DINING O
0000000000 ��
� u u � �
� ENTRANCEDOORS
U� '" . � '°.i O u
PATIO SEATING
� � � �
�
FLOOR PLAN
F HA 1,16��-��_o,�
. .
14344"Y"STREET CH I POTLE ��P�T�
SUITE NO.204 V fn
OMAHA,NE 68137-2805 UKIAH �
TEL: 402.895.0878 � F �
FAX: 402.895.9561 03/19/2015 +�A N Gav
www.f h aarch itects.co m
EXTERIOR FINISH LEGEND
STUCCO#1: FINE PEBBLE FINISH,PAINTED WHITE
STUCCO#2: FINE PEBBLE FINISH,PAINTED PPG KNIGHTS ARMOR
ALUMINUM STOREFRONT: ALUMINUM STOREFRONT WITH CHARCOAL FINISH
T.O.PARAPET �
_ - _ - � - � _ - _ -. - _ . _ - , -, , _ _ : � 119 0
�-, - �_ . - - _, ,`- - � C� C� 0 p OO��C� � �� � � � �. . � sTUCCO#z
_ _ _ _ SIGNAGE
� � � � � " � , � � ., STUCCO#1
� � � METAL CANOPY
_ _ T.O.STOREFRO�NT
109'-0
ALUMINUM STOREFRONT
i �
i � STUCCO#1
� � PATIO FURNITURE
� � - WOOD WALL
� "�' -
FINISHED FLOOR�
100'-0'
EXTERIOR ELEVATION-SOUTH
F HA 1,8,�=1�-0„
. .
14344"Y"STREET CH I POTLE ��P�T�
SUITE NO.204 V fn
OMAHA,NE 68137-2805 UKIAH �
TEL: 402.895.0878 � F �
FAX: 402.895.9561 03/19/2015 +�A N Gav
www.f h aarch itects.co m
EXTERIOR FINISH LEGEND
STUCCO#1: FINE PEBBLE FINISH,PAINTED WHITE
STUCCO#2: FINE PEBBLE FINISH,PAINTED PPG KNIGHTS ARMOR
ALUMINUM STOREFRONT: ALUMINUM STOREFRONT WITH CHARCOAL FINISH
T.O.PARAPET �
� � � . ,. � � .. . , . _ _ ', �, � :. - - �. � � 119'-0
- - - "- - � ' � STUCCO#2
�: � : � C�aO �O��C� - _ _ " _ r _ ' - _ � _ � : � � �_ ' � SIGNAGE
� � � � � . � � � ,. � - STUCCO#1
METAL CANOPY
_ ' ' � � �' � _� � � T.O.STOREFRO�NT
� � � , � 109'-0
� � ALUMINUM
� � _� . STOREFRONT
i i i � ,' � � .� STUCCO#2
� ' � � � FINISHED FLOOR �
100 0
EXTERIOR ELEVATION-EAST
F HA 1,8,�=1�-0„
. .
14344"Y"STREET CH I POTLE ��P�T�
SUITE NO.204 V fn
OMAHA,NE 68137-2805 UKIAH �
TEL: 402.895.0878 � F �
FAX: 402.895.9561 03/19/2015 +�A N Gav
www.f h aarch itects.co m
EXTERIOR FINISH LEGEND
STUCCO#1: FINE PEBBLE FINISH,PAINTED WHITE
STUCCO#2: FINE PEBBLE FINISH,PAINTED PPG KNIGHTS ARMOR
ALUMINUM STOREFRONT: ALUMINUM STOREFRONT WITH CHARCOAL FINISH
T.O.PARAPET �
-. , - . - - - � � , - - � - � - . - ' � � � �, � . �, � � , - 119 0
• � � . - ; -, . � - - - � - � - -, _ _ -. � . � � � STUCCO#2
� �W OpOO��� ��� . � . ;� , . �. � � � . SIGNAGE
� �� � � =�� �� � �� �� �� ��� �� � ��� � � ��� � �� ��� ��� � �� �� ��� � �� �� �� � :� �0
� � � , � � ' � . � - � � � � " ,� , � STUCCO#1
� � � � � . � , � � � . � _ METAL CANOPY
� � ' � _ T.0_STOREFRO�NT
° 109'-0
� � � � � ' � � , � - � ' ,� � ��
� � ' � �� ALUMINUM
� � - ' � II STOREFRONT
� � , � � • � „ � . � � � , i u WOOD SIDING
� � � ` � � � ' � " FINISHED FLOOR �
100 0
EXTERIOR ELEVATION-WEST
F HA 1,8„=1�-0„
. .
14344"Y"STREET CH I POTLE ��P�T�
SUITE NO.204 V fn
OMAHA,NE 68137-2805 UKIAH �
TEL: 402.895.0878 � F �
FAX: 402.895.9561 03/19/2015 +�A N Gav
www.f h aarch itects.co m
EXTERIOR FINISH LEGEND
STUCCO#1: FINE PEBBLE FINISH,PAINTED WHITE
STUCCO#2: FINE PEBBLE FINISH,PAINTED PPG KNIGHTS ARMOR
ALUMINUM STOREFRONT: ALUMINUM STOREFRONT WITH CHARCOAL FINISH
T.O.PARAPET �
119 0
M p 2 STUCCO#2
O �W�POO�L�L� SIGNAGE
STUCCO#1
_ B.O.SO�FFIT
� . � � . , „ � � � - . 111'-0
� . , � STUCCO#1
� ' � . �-8� , � � � ,
' . � � �, - � � STUCCO#2
� � � �
� . � �� � . �, � '
� � , � � . � � � � . �
�
� � � ' � � � � ' � � � FINISHED FLOOR �
100 0
EXTERIOR ELEVATION-NORTH
F HA 1,8,�=1�-0„
. .
14344"Y"STREET CH I POTLE ��P�T�
SUITE NO.204 V fn
OMAHA,NE 68137-2805 UKIAH �
TEL: 402.895.0878 � F �
FAX: 402.895.9561 03/19/2015 +�A N Gav
www.f h aarch itects.co m
_ ,�4,� _
�� °
;fi` � ,�
�
i'" •,e
� y - _ _ �� �.-
- �.�y.
I
�r '-�L�,} �
��` .��
FHA
. .
14344"Y"STREET CH I POTLE ��P�T�
SUITE NO.204 V fn
OMAHA,NE 68137-2805 UKIAH 7 �
TEL: 402.895.0878 " F �
FAX: 402.895.9561 03/19/2015 +�A N Gav
www.f h aarch itects.co m
��
:,;�..
'�7� z.��' "`t' ,
y:�
� C
�IrA
Y..�
L 1� —
A.
_f.,
_.-__ _ ' i ��i,'N_ _
' " -- � ' ' -i�� - - ���� .
�' _. — -.. . _. ,_.__ ...- . -, - --- — ----
_ �•,,,a " -�" '�J��r:+-,:..�_, �. �--. -
ti . _
- ? - _. -� - -�'�}'��^ -��-+�- �-
� � ---'�� `� �..
a!�'�� r � � . - -: -
��1�- y -� �+� +-I �.-±�:+G _is ar�.�. - � '� �-'
FHA
. .
14344"Y"STREET CH I POTLE ��P�T�
SUITE NO.204 V fn
OMAHA,NE 68137-2805 UKIAH �
TEL: 402.895.0878 � F �
FAX: 402.895.9561 03/19/2015 +�A N Gav
www.f h aarch itects.co m
�y �
'� �.''�, ,A I � �. -
� .; � �: � -
, � . �'�'�, h
- - � , �
� �
� � � , �°.� �
�.
_ .
.a� �;
_ .
�
� - '� . : . • � F CHIPOTLE . �
.. , _ �, . ,.�--� �a
, � _ � �
: - ■�` '� �:�N. • �. _ -
� - - = - -.. = _ _ _
�
.. � r� � y . . . � .� _ , -
' � Y _ '
, .`
,�j,_.'�. � ' _ _
31 ,� ,� t �� .,-� �'��
� }_ a-� -��o �",�r�'� Ss��' r_ -S2''�' J„ �q.",� ��" Sy�P",�? � '��5j� , L Syry,��- CJ � �}~ �� _�1��'�- '
.. ' . i .c K -�5-'ay^ � 5';, i,.,� ;)._.�Y �� -0 '5��.�FT 'k� r h. r �aT F'"i�M'-� ° n 4�. �� �- 'S� :- �`� 1�� �
-�}t- � ;, ,, �F r�-' �"� k� ,; �. =
-�`i �` - - .... ..... � �� -K , . - • i� � —
. ' . ' '..��- ,... . . . .. , ,. . _.M . �� . . e�1� �
' � �__-..._
_. . . .'__'_ ___... . - _'_ __._ . . _-__.. .. . . ._ �'
�
ARCHITECTS
,� .
. ,. � Q
. . � :� � Q
,,• ,.
-� � � �
..�� '"� � �.r�_ ' - ,
A�~'��:�
� •��� - _ .. � _ • . � .y -
._ - �^T ^ rw�—_ .
— � •- ' • �w� .
— . , —_ � � _ ' �
.` - L
7
��•�
ti'
qi_ -- -
�:w:z ` s ' ' , ; CNIP�TLE CHIPOTL : _- � u � --
�
- � —
�5. - �-� `
s r ;
_. . ���:1 E � •t
� ' �'lt .-fSir� '—��• _
� . � . . ._ _ �-y' .R .��� .!• � 'j•
-r'?t �. . " ---- �a ,�.- ' •- .,,r� •� �
�;' ��;� _ i � r� ' `--� : ��,_. • ti —
��+i .�""�;.:.i-.�f.�:�iT�.s�, ,. .• , I - � ._ .- N�`!��l` � i '
.F+;p+��'t�� . . w f � .-. ' - , " �_ -, �i.-.r '�� s
..M.,� .i..; —
•. - i f ,:� •� i ^r '(�S.' ,
-------- --- ----- � :'I.i ��' �r � 'l•'s � �—
_ ----------- --- • � ` ���- --- � .. : ..��`�,�s'�.r'�, _ _
- i�•."�-�'' � •'+. ^-'�c
r �- — = .-Y � r.�••`,'_'-'- •:�� -
�.:�➢a \.�� � x Pa ���yq�•i,F'•�
�— }. g::�'�:• "�S♦`�jCt%:.p''..rnk.� y ".' .N: i+.' r
4 �i. a �.1`e:. Y �'r,,1'N�Mil' `�.'
j y.r!'��?F�4�.9��u:,w� �':_i.y��«„-,.. �...1 ���y::•-•+
.5-�i }■, y� s`•-. ;h+�'y4:�':-:.e,t �� i:Y. �f.� .��.,.
�� . • '�,�:.���._a:� �F�l•4_-'7ti4.',.•��� � .Y�1•.�';`�-7AK.�.�..,
'•+'7'. " -� �:�'w��..i�.��' '}�<�y<��+: a.� ,�' �t'LSI.
�F 1 r�} ��. ...�.-�SSii.�`{��. :k t .
'7: : . • �,�_
i� .. s'.� ":�"��e4',`�� '.�.�`� Z�����. tih .
� �K• y . . � �.��_ '-���.i
^.b�. V'`r'�s ,i•+�: -.L� ��'�.-':�r .
..� ,a'� •''�� ���"J': �
� - -• . ��.•.t
. . 'i•�i'�o- .�! .
�
ARCHITECTS
,� .
. ,. ' Q
. . � :� � Q
,,• ,.
-� � � �
_ ,�4,� _
�� °
_ �
�� ,;:
i'" •,e
� y - _ _ �� �.-
- �.�y.
I
�r '-�L�,} �
��` .��
FHA
. .
14344"Y"STREET CH I POTLE ��P�T�
SUITE NO.204 V fn
OMAHA,NE 68137-2805 UKIAH �
TEL: 402.895.0878 11 � �
FAX: 402.895.9561 03/19/2015 +�A N Gav
www.f h aarch itects.co m
��
;�= :_;�:r
- . •
,s
� �.�
L 1�
A.
_ � - ' , t��� _ --��.��
—` - ' .� _. — _.. . _. ,_.__ ...' ' _, _ _'' _ ___-
_ '.,�•.,�;,. _ -�,w �F�ri+�,P..�.'°��. s +�--. - _
ti . _
- -'- " __.. -� ___ �_ ����^. �a'w.�__ � �_ _
. �.,'���. �_�� � _ �_�
�!'�� .� � � . - _: _
��1�- y -� �+� +-I �.-±�:+G _is ar�.�. - � '� �-'
FHA
. .
14344"Y"STREET CH I POTLE ��P�T�
SUITE NO.204 V fn
OMAHA,NE 68137-2805 UKIAH �
TEL: 402.895.0878 �� F �
FAX: 402.895.9561 03/19/2015 +�A N Gav
www.f h aarch itects.co m
�y �
'� �.''�, ,A I � �. -
� .; � �: � -
, � . �'�'�, h
- - � , �
� �
� � � _ �` � ,
_ .
..
� � . .�� �' �
.
� - '� . - • � � CHIPOTLE . �
.. , - . ' �, . �.�=-� �a
, � _ � �
■� � �:�N. • �. _ -
,- �.,; _ _� !, - � �F. -_ �, . � - c -� �� � �
:+-.� � ~�)--� �� - •. `' �
� : .� x'- �`yo..���1�^� ,��'� ,� � �r :'* .��'�'$# �'�1� a'�''� v'� a�"�# +�P°b� '°"## ��r --'1����� - -
.. � :}f;. 5 5}�-,{; ,r+ ,.s,,�i. c�r..� y � s�!4f�-,k f ...,y � � ;v y+1n r k � 5 f,�1 k '�''.� • . �.. 1 � —
� �
" � � . .. •. . . . . ,. .. . , . ,. .. . , . . .. . e�A �
�___.._
_. . . .'__'_ ___... . - _'_ __._ . . _-__.. .. . . ._ �'
�
ARCHITECTS
,� .
. �. �
. . � :� � Q
,,• ,.
-� � � �
..�� '"� � �.r�_ ' - ,
A�~'��:�
� •��� - _ .. � _ • . � .y -
._ - �^T ^ rw�—_ .
— � •- ' • �w� .
— . , —_ � � _ ' �
.` - L
. ,,"- j_��f
��„ . - - �� � �N�Par�� �cNiaot�� - ---_ � �
--- � �
�,-, , . . , —
[:�;��• _� � �> � . . _ G. i`• _ ` . . ,
..��. • .. '. 1 . I l-�� � •k
_ . '-�vi�+��: I �qt rl�� � .l���. .
i --�I' � R .�`� l•.�— �
f �,V .._ � - - 4 ..� `_ — _ _
�" _ .s�?y"�' � I �- � _ . � ;�. r� !��_. rt ti •
---- :�'�a.,:��.�-.!h,•r',Y,L~'�",,�� .�i'��r� � --- � I �=;_ �'"� I,..,� ...�-- � l�� �
.. y.. � �' .� I .. .. � ' . ,
-------- --------------- � I.c I .y�'��1= '�� ��.. � _ ..{�.���� � -T—
---� --- � _ _ . E n :. •, Y;;: :;'•,q.:. � -
~— . . � ..�('-�' '-; �A.l:,Rr � •i�' "'�N , t'��G�ktk - '
_Y' � ��:?'7� M �g
:%� i J�a'-ti. x {� ;�a`�t
�.a{'��k.Y' �� � � ��.�9.AA�� ����?.'ir� ",a�-}' -..`
■ L ' �`:'.� 'i
� ����•�- '' . . :��..� _.��:
K �,. .�u�=,it..S•s�a. :`l��t�.� s'`�;s. /y.
:i�~S •�� 1, 11.��n.}�.� 4iA �r � .R��J��
�.:a. -. �rr ..`."�`•_�:7}_•,v�' �:��,,y�= •a�•�-
.,a� i� ,,l ..ti. �. 1 r jC.r,y..'
� -..�'K ._����.i:Y���.a. ,� ` •. .a.r,rj; �' `y�
•.� 1�w�'.�. � u �� r:r3�'*�,'��:(�t�.f�a
�,•�.,"1'L�. -"��4� :�''� �i '�.:�« ._r':�=
�...f ys
a:r,:�.� •���.��• ����g.y ;���i
-� _'¢ r.'- '� . } .
�.
+ '�}_�� .r .�•.
�..
���,
��
1
ARCHITECTS
,� .
. ,. � Q
. . � :� � Q
,,• ,.
-� � � �
i
s
. _��..:,.�
.' ���R��,��� ��fi; �����€�.��€����!W'�i �`�1���9��,.;..�:����� F ���'t'�;����� ' . �',t�����'���"°�B.l��� ��,�;�`�iii:��t'�$'ws
�� ° �l �1.�r�d�rci� �.,��.n..���� .
' TabY� �1: Fr�nt�g�`Cyp����cl�tc���fr���t���nd�rc3� �
�TAt����C1� ��IV��,4L�Jf2���1 CIR�AN��N7'�R ���JN'FO�IN���E N1��IFIGA.'TI�lU T°�
('i}{2) �t1 t1� i�� �1°Af��A�E�(3}
FA�A���RI�NT�TI�t�
Relationship to paraliel to Principai Parailel to Principal ` Parailel to Principai Minor Exception
Frontage Line Frontage Line(s) Frontage Line(s)for Frontage Line(s)for
70%of its Iength 80°l0 of its length
Location of Principal On the Frontage Line On the frontage Line On the Frontage Line Majar Exception
Pedestrian Entrance (4) (4) (4)
CornerTreatment Ground floor located behind the sidewalk shail wrap fhe corner in circular, Major Ezception
chamfered;or similar manner.
Turrets are encouraged far corner puiidings.
Existing Building(5} Exterior modifications�nd atlditions to existing buildings wifh non-conforming Major Exception
facede orientation shall utilize an allowed frontage type as required by
Table 6:Standards for PrincipalBuildings.
�1°O��FR�R1T FRONTAGES{6}-�ROIJND LEV��
Entrance- Primary entry facing the corner.Additional(secondary enfries)may be Major Exception
Carner Buiiding located along the frontage lines.
_ _ _ _ _ __
Entrance=Neighf Flush with sidewalk grade except as tequired for compliance with Flood Plain Minor Exception
Management requirements(Ukiah City Code,Chapter 6)
" Expression Lines(2) Required far Mixed-use buildings Minar Exception
Facade Width In order to break up wide buildings and to makelhem appear as individual smaller Minor Excep#ion
buildings,#he maximum width of a single facatle style shali be 75 feet.
See f�esign Appendix
Floor Height-Minimum 12-feet clear measured from the surface of the floor to bottom of fhe ceiling. Minor Exception
Sfory Iieight shall not exceed 14 feet. '
Door Spacing on Operabie front doors spaced a maximum of 30 feet apart Minor Excepfi(on '
Frontage(s){7) along the biock face:(8} '
Glazing Clear glass bver a minimum of 70%of the ground ievel facade(s). Minor Exception
--
Prohibited:opaque or mirrored;giazing
;4�1lIP�I�1G�;;�Ai�LERIE�,A�€�ARGA�ES
Matsrials Metal,cloth,wood Minor Excepi�tin
Prohibited`.Hard Acrylic
Functionality When located on the sauth or west elevation;located to provide Minor Exception
shading of the interior of the building.
Existing Awning An existing frame#hat does not compiy with the functionality requirement Minor Exception
may be recovered.
Materials shall comply with the materiais noted above.
ENCFtCiACHMENT�
Arcade,Awning,Gallery Allowed to accupy aIl or part of the required sefback(9) None(10}
Balcony,French 8aicony Rllowed to occupy ali or part of 4he'required setback(9) None(10}
Bay Window Aliowed to occupy aIl or part of the required setback(9) None(10)
Stoop Allowed to occupy alI or part of the requi�ed settiack None(10)
t Encroachment into the public right-of-way requires approval of an encroachment permit from the Public Works Department.
2. See Section 13:Glossary for an explanation of tetms.
3: See Section 12:Admi�istratio�antl Procedures. '
4. On comer lots,orientation of the principal pedestrian entrance shall 6e to the corner.
5. Existing buildings with non-conPorming frontage types may retain the ezisting facade when makinginterior modifications that do not affect the exterior of
tlie 6uilding.
6. Refer the Figure 9:Special Designations Map for locations of"Required"and"Recommendetl"8tarefront Fronteges.
7. Where Shopfront Frontage is required by Figure 9:Special Designations Map:
8. Doors shall be installed as required. All doors are not required to be operable. Compliance with the location of the primary entrance for corner buiiding is
required and this door shall be operable.
9. Encroachment into the public right-of-way may be allowed with approval of the review authority and the Public Works Department.
10. An exception is not required in order to encroach into the setbackApproval of the Planning pepartment,Public Works Department,aod Electne Depart-
ment is required.
City Councii r�dopted Version October 3,2Q12 �
. °-F°4 ����.
s���1� ��' ��� ����+��'�����?��� � �����R�� �,����� ��'��s���� �r�� �@��`�����Q� �G �'��c�����@��� ��
_ ��. ,_,_�..������ . . , ,� e,.�.,�m�,.�,�,.� .�,���� �m�,�.,.__�.._�.��.._�,�, .�� �„ux .�,.�_�..�.� ..�..�,.�.. �.�.��..�..a.,M.�,,.� �
�, �.,��-����� ��.�
"�'��t4� �2;�r�hit���ur�� �i�rr���t��r�d 1t��fi�ri�l�
sr����a���t�)(2} ��:��c���s � �no���i��°r�o�
; rr���������{��
EXISl'IM(s�UILDINt��
', Addition-Facade Shall comply with the architectural standards included in this Table:(4) Major Excepfiion
Addition-Elevation Shail comply with the architeeturai standardsincluded in ttris 7able.(4) Minor Exception
Modification-Facade Shall comply with the architectural stantlards incWtled in this Tabie.(�F) Major Excepfion
, Modificatian-Elevation Shail comply with the architectural stantlards inciucled in this Table.(4) Minor Exception
OP�NINGS
Abave First Story-Niaximum Maximum opening of 75%of totai building wall area Minor Exception
Opening for eacfi facade or elevation.
Above'First Story- Minimum opening of 25°l0 of 4atal building wall area Minor Exception
Minimum Opening for each facade or elevation
Arcades,galleries,windows, Vertical or square orientation. Minor Exception
etc.-Orientation Horizontal orientation is prohibited:
Doors and Windows=Slider Prohibited along Frontages Major Exception
Operation
Doors and Windows-Faux Prohibited Major Exception
(e.g.FlushMail-On)
Doors and Windows- Minimum 3-inch recess requi�ed on Facade(s), Minor Excepfion
Recess measured from the wall af the facade:
Window-Shutter(5) Sizetl to metch window opening(close over the entire window) Minor Exception
' MATERlALS
Balconies,Stoops Goncrete;painted or stained wood,or metal Minor Excepfion
Facade(s)-Primary Exterior Brick,wood siding,fiber cement siding,stucco,sfone Minor Exception
Finisti(6)
Facade-Location ofi Materi- Combined horizontally with heavier material below the lighter materiai Minor Exception
als
, Prohibited F'lane panel siding(71-11}as the primary siding materiai Nlajor Exception
���?F�
, Conl Roof,Living Raof,Roof Aliowed and encouraged in compiiance with alI appiicabie Building Code None(7}
Garden requiremenfs:
Fiat Roof-Parapet Enclosed by a parapet wifli a minimum height of 42-inches or Minor Excepfion
as needed ta screen mechanical equipment.
' Sloped Raof-Pitch Sloped symmetrically with a minimum pitch of 5:12. Minor ExGepfion
5hed roof may have a minimum pitch of 2:12.
Photo Voltaic-Loeation On a sloped roof;shall be flush mounted. Minor Exception
! On a flat roof,shall be flush mounted or if tiltetl shall not exfentl above the parapet
of the roo(:
Roof Slope Shall be designed to accommodate photovoltaic: Minor Excepfiion
Accessory Structures Allowed in complianee with all appiicabie Bailtling Gode Requirements and subject Minor Exception
to the deveiopme�t standards'for accessory buildings.(8)
Examples`include treliis;pergola;gazebo and other similar structures as
determined by the Planning Director.
ANCFIO��UILDINGS(9}
Facade Design Building length shall be visually reduced by varying building and/or parapef heights. Major Exception
The use of different coiors and materials should also be considered.
1. Encroachmen4 into the public right-of-way requires approval of an eocroachment permit from the Public Works Department.
2. See Section 13:Glossary for an explanation of terms. '
3. See Section 12: Administration antl Procedures.
n. Unless subject to the requirements of Ta61e13:Historical Building Standards. '
5. Not a required design element. If induded aspart of the project,shutters must comply with this standard.
6. Synthetic materials such as hardboard siding and stone(e.g.limestone,glazed tile,and heritage materials known to be used Mstoncally in Ukiah}may aiso be '
aliowed if it accurately simulates the natural material and has equal or better weathering charaderistics.The use of the material is at the discretion of the review '
authority(i.e.Planning Commission,Zoning Administrator,Director).
7. No Exception is required since this is a recommendation and not a requirement.
8. Minor Exception is required to modify standards for accessory buildings.
9. Applies to any building with a facade width of 75 feet or more.
� City CounciE Adapted Version pctober 3,2012 ���
��
; " �'���.����� 1�� �,�c���3�,������ �:�*����3���3�� ���� ����i� � `�F��' �°����t��R��� e����! �����=�n�`��?������'K§� �S�x���`��P�€���
�"�bi� 1�: ��r�d���pir�g ���rsd��ci�f�r��l ���t��eapr��r��� ��
�7'A��A�2�� �L,L��tdE� � �I��I�d�A�'1�1�1'�
; ST�N�.A���"{'1�
��n�ra! E2�c{uir�r�er�t�
��t1�1°�1 RBqUir�- Minimum of 3 feet interior width for landscaped areas without trees. Minor Exc�p���p
' �1e��� Minimum of 4 feet interior width for landseaped area with trees.
Height Shall comply with neight limits forvision triangles. Minor ExcepfiQn�2�
Hydrozones Plants with similar water requirements s6all be grouped together. Minor Exeeption
_—
Irrigation Ail landscaped areas shall be provided with an automaticirrigation system,except Minor Exception
those areaslandscaped wi#h native plants not requiring irrigatian,
' Plans Landscaping`p(an is requiretl. None '
Model Water Efficiency Landscaping and irrigation plans for develapmen#projects shall compiywith the None
Landscape Ordinance State afi California Model Water Efficiency�antlscape Ordinance.
! (MWELO) Landscaping and irrigation plans submitted as pa�t of the development permit ap- '
plication shaii demonstrate compliance with the mast recently adopted version af '
the MWELO unless superseded by City ordinance.
' Safety-locationlsize of Shall not interfere with safe sight distances for vehicWar,t�icycle,or pedestrian None
_ _ planting at maturity_ traffic;conflict with overhead power lines;or block pedestrian orbicycie ways. __
Species(3} Species shall be selected based on their adaptability to climatic,geological and As aliowed by
` topographical conditions o#the site: Tables 21-26
Native,drought folerant species known to grow well in Ukiah's climate
are encouraged.
Trees {4)(5)
Existing Shail be refained and preserved as required in Section 10:Tree Preservation and As allowed by
Planting Requiremer�ts, Tables 18 and 'Ig
Location Shall not be planted under any eave,overhang,balcony,light standard,or other Minor Exception(2)
structure thaf may interfere with r�ormal growth:
Root Barriers Required for tree plantersless than 70 feet in width or Iocated Iess than 5 feet Minor Exceptian{2)
__.
from a permanent sfructure.
Parking Lot Trees See Secfion 10:Tree Preservation and§?IantingRequirements As allowed by
Tabies24 and 25
Street Trees-spacing 1 street tree every 30 feet of parcel frontage(5) None
sEe Section 10:04�(E63
Street Trees- species, See Section 1 Q:Tree Preservation and Planting Requirements Rs allowed by
additional requirements Tables 21,22,23
Gra�as�d�over�nd Shrubs
Groundcaver Minimum 1 gallon and appropriately spaced in accordance with size at maturity. Minor Excepqion
Shrubs Minimum 5 gailon and appropriately spaced in accordance with size at maturify. Minor Excepfion
Turf Is discouraged. Minor Exception
Any turf area shali be kept to a minimum and used oniy where a practical need
can be demonsfirafed as part af the landscaping plan.
Crushed rock,pebbles, Maximum of 15°/a of the total area to be landscaped. Minor Excaption
stone,similar materials
Planting beds Top dressed with a bark chip mulch or other approved afternative. Minor Exception
Artificiai or synthetic Prohibited Major Exception
groundcover or shrubs
lrragatiorr
Design To reduce water usage. None
Plans Conceptual irrigation plan is required as part of the landscaping plan. None '
1. See Section 12: Administration and Procedures.
2. Modification 4o thiss4andard xequires review and approval of the Planning Department,Public Works Department,Fire Departrnent and Eledric Utility
Department as applicable to the spedfic project. '
3. See Tables 2D-25 for specific species requirements for street trees,parking lots and riparian corridors.
4. Where the requirements of this Table conflict with the requitements of Section 9:Parking Requiremen4s and Design Standards,the requirements of Seo-
4ion 10 shall controL
5. Where the requirements of this 7able conflic4 with the requirements of S=ction 10:Trse Preservation and Planting Requicemenis,the requiremenis of
Section 10 shall control.
City Co ,
42
Article 18: Qownt�wn Zonin� Gode Section 6. SitePlanninq and Developmen� S�and�rds �
Table 10: l.andscaping Standards for Ali Developments continued
STANDARDS ALL ZONES MODIFIGATIUN TO
STANDARDS {1)
Maintenance Requirements
Fertilizer Only used'on trees during planting. None'(2}
Shrubs may receive periodic fertilizer according the recommendations of a
iandscaping professionaL-
Irrigation In working conditions at all times. None{2)
Litter Removed from landscaped areas on a regular basis. None(2}
Pruning (3) AII trees shall be properly prunetl. None(2)
Top cutting of trees is prohibited.
Ali pruning shall follow industry best p�actices to ensure long-term health
and vifality.
Replacement-tree, Any Iandscaping thaYdies,fails to grow or is unhealthy due to pests,damage, None(2)
shrub,groundcover ' disease,vandalism,or other factors shall be replac�d immediately.
Repiacement shall conform to the standards that govem the o�iginal planting,
approved landscaping plan;or as approved by the Pianning Qirectoc
Stakes-inspection Ties`and stakes to be inspected by the property owner or their designatetl repre- None(2)
sentative every 6 months io ensure they do not constrict the trunks or damage the
tree.
Stakes-remaval Ties and stakes ta be removed by the property owner or their designated represen- None(2}
tative after 1 to 3 years to ensure they do not damage the trunk bf the tree or its
overall growth:
Turf areas Mowed on a regular basis and kept green and weed free at all times. None(2)
Watering Regular slow deep wetering when feasibie fluctuating to provide more water in the None(2)
summer and less water in the winter.(4)
Weed kiiler Shali not be used an or near trees: None(2)
1. See Section 12:Administration and Procedures.
2. Maintenance requirements are provided to ensure the long term health and viability of Iandscaping antl trees.No modification is allowed to maintenance
requirements is allowed. '
3. For info�mation regarding proper pruning techniques,see the International Sociely ofArtioricuiture web site,www.isa-atbor.com.
4. Turf areas are not required ta be kept g�een during#imes o�mandatory water cnnservation,water moratorium,or a declared water emergency:
City Council Adopted Version October 3,2012 .....
43