HomeMy WebLinkAbout05142015 - packet City of Ukiah
Design Review Board
"�""�""�"�'V Thursday May 14, 2015 "�'"'�""��'V
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 26, 2015 and April 9, 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: June 11, 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.
��ty � u�iah City of Ukiah, CA
Design Review Board
1
2 MINUTES
3
4 Regular Meeting March 26, 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, Nick Thayer
12
13 Absent:
14
15 Staff Present: Charley Stump, Planning Director
16 Michelle Johnson, Assistant Planner
17 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
18
19 Others present: Dan Thomas
20 Reed Finlay
21
22 3. CORRESPONDENCE:
23
24 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes from the March 3, 2015 and March 12, 2015
25 meeting are available for review and approval.
26
27 M/S Nicholson/Morrow to approve March 3, 2015 and March 12, 2015 minutes, as submitted.
28 Motion carried by all AYE voice vote. (5-0)
29
30 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
31
32 The DRB is required by the City Code to review and make a recommendation on all Site
33 Development Permit applications.
34
35 6. NEW BUSINESS:
36 6A. Chipotle's Mexican Grill Restaurant 596 East Perkins Street, (File No.: 842) Review
37 and recommendation to Planning Commission on a Site Development Permit for
38 construction of a 2,000 square foot Chipotle Mexican Grill restaurant on the vacant parcel
39 located in the Downtown Zoning District at the northwest corner of East Perkins Street
40 and Orchard Avenue. On-site parking and landscaping are also proposed, as is outdoor
41 dining along both street frontages at 596 East Perkins Street, APN 002-200-38.
42
43 Planning Director Stump introduced the proposed Project:
44 • Today's DRB meeting is a request for preliminary review for a Chipotle's Mexican Grill
45 Restaurant.
46 • The proposed Project is located in the DZC UC (Urban Center) zoning district. As such,
47 the Project does not comply with certain corresponding zoning standards where the
48 applicant is likely to seek exceptions related to 1) the two-story building requirement; 2)
49 project is over-parked; and 3) 70°/o street frontage is necessary for buildings located on
50 primary streets.
51
Design Review Board March 26, 2015
Page 1
1 Reed Finlay, Project Architect referred to the conceptual site plans and commented on the
2 proposed Project:
3 • Explained Chipotle Mexican Grill restaurants have high standards and guiding principles
4 when it comes to quality of food and restaurant design. The company's motto is to
5 provide `food with integrity' by helping people rethink the way they eat and goes to great
6 lengths to make certain their food is sourced, healthy and without out toxins.
7 • Chipotle restaurants are designed to be clean/simple one-story buildings that function
8 well, provide for nice landscaping amenities, sustainably constructed and pedestrian
9 friendly. Their building methods are reputable and all associated materials are quality.
10 • Is using the City's Master Tree list.
11 • The Project will feature patios using `natural' materials and umbrellas for shade purposes.
12 • Likes the location of the proposed new restaurant in Ukiah.
13
14 Member Hawkes:
15 • Sees the building would likely comply with the 70% street frontage requirement if the
16 building is turned.
17
18 Planning Director Stump:
19 • Would have to look whether turning the building complies with the 70% street frontage
20 requirement where the intent of the standard is to get buildings up on the street front as
21 much as possible. In this case, the building scenario differs because it is a corner lot and
22 Orchard Avenue is almost as `prominent' as Perkins Street. An exception to the street
23 frontage requirement is likely to be supported since glass and patios would be on both
24 sides of the street frontages.
25
26 Reed Finlay:
27 • Very important to note the restaurant would be located at a very key intersection so it
28 makes sense architecturally to have the dining area face the corner.
29
30 Member Thayer:
31 • Noted the 10-foot public right-of-way area on Perkins Street may not be correct from the
32 standpoint the Perkins Street streetscape project plans are not in place at this time and
33 asked if the public right-of-way in this area will change?
34 • Related to access, if there is really no opportunity for a vehicle connection to the
35 restaurant site, there needs to be a pedestrian connection from the westerly
36 underutilized parking area to the restaurant.
37 • Asked about compliance with the City parking standard of one tree planted for every four
38 parking spaces and why this was not the case for the underutilized parking lot area.
39 • As part of the landscaping plan would be nice to see the adjacent property and how it
40 connects in this regard.
41
42 Vice Chair Liden:
43 • Requested clarification for the entrance being located on the corner?
44
45 Member Hawkes:
46 • Likes that the entrance is up close and not in the parking area.
47
48 Member Nicholson:
49 • Questioned access to the rest of the shopping center. If a person wants to drive to the
50 restaurant, it would be difficult to get onto the freeway without some maneuvering and
51 forethought. Is there a way to get access to the parking lot?
52 • Supports having well-defined pedestrian access from the shopping center.
53 • Related to having a streetscape plan in place at some point referred to his proposed
54 landscaping modifications that are incorporated into the minutes as attachment 1.
Design Review Board March 26, 2015
Page 2
1 • Related to the proposed landscape plan was not clear what are trees and what are
2 shrubs. Supports having more substantial trees and is of the opinion this approach would
3 provide for a more pedestrian friendly environment as well as soften the corner area
4 while leaving it open enough for the advertising of the restaurant.
5 • Referred to sheet 2 of his proposed project modification plans related to the building as `a
6 user' where his preference would be to pull the awning outward so it covers the outdoor
7 dining area, which would provide for a shelter but leave an opening between the building
8 and the outdoor dining area with the hope it would not compromise the mass/size, scale
9 and proportion of the building. Supports the property owner and architect consider this
10 design amenity. Important to get the design concept because of the potential effect this
11 building will have in the neighborhood and with it being located at an intersection on a
12 primary gateway. Is of the opinion allowing for nice pedestrian entry from the shopping
13 center area and having a dining area that is sheltered creates more of a `sense of place.'
14
15 Dan Thomas, Applicant:
16 • Acknowledged access to the parking lot is problematic. The major tenants in the
17 shopping center have a reciprocal parking agreement that requires their permission to
18 make changes and is unable to make this happen.
19 • Acknowledged the existing Redwood trees were planted years ago for purposes of a
20 driveway.
21 • Requested clarification the City easement comes right up to the south end of the planter
22 area?
23
24 Planning Director Stump:
25 • The concept of the Perkins Street streetscape project has been discussed as it relates to
26 the proposed project. Did not want to require the applicant plant trees/landscaping in this
27 area only to possibly have it removed when the right-of-way is widened and referred to
28 the site plans.
29 • Confirmed the public right-of-way in this area will change with the Perkins Street
30 streetscape project.
31 • While there may be many other associated reasons for a corner entrance, part of the
32 intent with regard to the DZC is to recapture the feel and look of the way buildings used
33 to be constructed on corner lots.
34 • The DZC requires the opening and/or way people access the building be `off the corner.'
35 • While the building is not completely on the corner the entrance into the dining patio area
36 is coming from the corner and is required.
37 • Two project components that require consideration are site circulation and the fact that
38 the Orchard Avenue property line is askew and is not a complete rectangle.
39 Consideration must also be given to the 10-foot public right-of-way in front on Perkins
40 Street and this is the reason no landscaping and/or trees are shown on the site plans in
41 this area.
42 • One would think the retail establishments in the shopping center would want the
43 business the restaurant could generate and willing to consider possible changes with
44 regard to the parking lot.
45 • People desiring to dine at the restaurant will likely use the underutilized parking area
46 near the Chipole parking lot if the restaurant parking lot is full. It may be rather than
47 trying to access the parking lot and finding it full that restaurant patrons will begin to
48 consistently/automatically use the underutilized parking lot area.
49 • Allowing for an effective pedestrian connection from the underutilized parking lot area is
50 very important/critical.
51 • It may be related to the City parking standard requiring one tree for every four parking
52 spaces the reason this is not the case in the underutilized parking lot area is because of
53 the large Redwood trees that exist in the area.
54 • Showed location of a possible pedestrian walkway from the underutilized parking lot.
Design Review Board March 26, 2015
Page 3
1
2 Assistant Planner Johnson:
3 • Referred to the revised site plans dated March 26, 2015 and the draft Perkins Gateway
4 Streetscape Study rendering incorporated in the minutes as attachment 2 and talked
5 about the City easement/public right-of-way area on Perkins Street in connection with the
6 planter area that fronts the property.
7
8 Reed Finlay:
9 • Asked what type of shelter awning is being proposed?
10
11 Member Nicholson:
12 • The shelter could be a solid form over the dining area so people can sit in this outdoor
13 area rain or shine.
14 • Restaurant should have an architectural connection that fits with the existing shopping
15 center buildings.
16 • Likes the proportion and scale of the proposed restaurant building; building has a `clean
17 design'that expresses the company brand well having very strong imagery.
18 • Preference is the darker color palate as opposed to the lighter (white color) as
19 demonstrated in the site plans.
20 • Referenced a Chipole restaurant in Los Angeles that exhibits a nice example of pulling
21 the dining area into the fa�ade of the building and this is what prompted him to think
22 about having a shade structure over the dining area that can be pulled into the landscape
23 area for the proposed restaurant in Ukiah. Such a structure would provide for a
24 `sheltering feel'to the dining experience.
25 • Has observed many contemporary casual restaurants in urban areas where the interior
26 back of the outdoor dining area is pulled from the facade to allow for a sheltering
27 area/sidewalk experience without actually being on the sidewalk. Finds this approach to
28 be a nice feature and is architecturally appealing. May not be sufficient room for the
29 Ukiah Chipole restaurant to do this and as such supports as an alternative pulling the
30 building outward over the dining area.
31 • Some Chipole restaurants have created an art space to display public art. If there is any
32 way to do this for the Ukiah Chipole having this amenity would be great for the
33 community. Display could be interior or exterior.
34
35 Member Thayer:
36 • The Chipole restaurant is essentially the `first' building a person would see driving into
37 town discounting gas stations. What a person would identify with is the signage and
38 mass of the building. The lot has been vacant for a long time so the new development
39 should be reflective of what is going on in town. An art display/mural opportunity would be
40 a nice amenity. It does not have to be part of the building but rather of some other
41 element type that reflects what is going on in the town/county.
42 • Wood application should reflect what architecturally fits/is adaptable with Mendocino
43 County theme. Understands the wood connotation/concept but questions ebay wood
44 used as siding on the building related to quality, durability and aesthetics.
45 • Encourages applicant to be creative with regard to application of the City Master Tree List
46 and to consider other possibilities that is more in keeping with the Chipole restaurant
47 theme and location of the building. Projects are required to use the City Master Tree list
48 for parking lots so as to ensure adequate shade coverage.
49 • Landscaping species not related to the parking lot should be emblematic of what is going
50 on with the building architecture.
51 • The planting area that immediately fronts Perkins Street is currently just a `placeholder'
52 until City plans related to the public right-of-way area for the Perkins Street streetscape
53 improvement project are developed. The placeholder area will essentially get reworked
54 as part of the Perkins Street streetscape improvement project and street trees will be
Design Review Board March 26, 2015
Page 4
1 selected and planted in the sidewalk planter area at this point. As such, not knowing what
2 form the public right-of-way area will take makes it difficult for applicant to formulate
3 landscaping plans.
4 • Consider planting another tree in the western elevation area.
5
6 DRB/applicant discussion about the use of ebay wood as siding on the building.
7
8 Planning Director Stump:
9 • Confirmed the public right-of-way is 10 feet from where the sidewalk is located and 10
10 feet into the site. Project applicant not required to plant any trees in this public right-of-
11 way planter area because this area is not part of the project.
12 • Related to the Perkins Street streetscape project the intent is to wait and let the
13 streetscape improvement project plant the trees that are selected.
14 • There will not be any widening of the roadway on Orchard Avenue.
15
16 Reed Finlay:
17 • Requested clarification the requirement of the Master Tree List will be everywhere except
18 for the south and east elevation areas.
19 • Chipole is all about plants and trees and proposed to plant trees in the frontage area, but
20 understands it is not possible to develop the frontage area with landscaping at this time.
21
22 Member Thayer:
23 • The intent of the Master Tree list is for adherence to parking lot trees and street
24 frontages; accordingly, it could be that the street frontage is essentially not part of the
25 project or that a major exception would be requested. If an applicant wanted to do
26 something different, it would have to be proposed and go through the process. The
27 proposed Chipole restaurant project will go through the process so with this being the
28 case would encourage the applicant to be creative in the selection of the landscaping
29 palate and what would work appropriately with the `Chipole brand.'
30 • Referred to the recent Burger King remodel/improvement project and is of the opinion the
31 landscaping palate is inappropriate without consideration of what might work on the site,
32 Ukiah's climate and is consistent with the Burger King brand.
33 • Would be willing to provide landscaping suggestions. Again, would encourage the
34 applicant to be creative with regard to selection of the landscaping tree and plant species.
35 • There are landscaping species that would work with the architecture and also fit
36 with/contribute to the Perkins Street streetscape project, preferably drought tolerant,
37 native plants.
38 • Would recommend no use of turf.
39 • Supports application of the lighter color palate.
40
41 Member Morrow:
42 • Is of the opinion Chipole will get foot traffic coming from the west where the hospital is
43 located and new courthouse will be built, etc., so it may be useful to tie in some type of
44 footpath to the project so as to draw people to the restaurant as opposed to just walking
45 across the parking lot. Having a connectivity would help with the aesthetic view in the
46 western area.
47 • Related to the site plans, can vision the patio `totally roasting' in the summer and
48 supports focusing on shading and heat management.
49 • Likes the concept of the 'set-in' patio area as a way to keep this area cooler. Has seen
50 this type of feature for restaurants in Arizona.
51 • Supports the idea of using landscaping alternatives in place of lawns, such as granite.
52 • Is of the opinion the driveway entrances to the restaurant will likely be problematic for
53 people getting on and off the freeway.
54 • Preference is the brown palate for the building.
Design Review Board March 26, 2015
Page 5
1 Member Thayer:
2 • Demonstrated the location where a footpath would likely work that would draw people
3 walking from the westerly direction.
4 • Would like to see `more reflective paving surfaces/permeable paving surfaces.'
5 • Important to have pedestrian access from the shopping center.
6
7 Member Hawkes:
8 • Asked if both driveways are two-way?
9 • Supports application of the darker color palate. Is of the opinion the darker color is more
10 `subtle.'
11
12 Vice Chair Liden:
13 • Supports application of the darker color palate, partially because he likes the shape of the
14 building. The building is also one of the first things a person sees when coming to Ukiah
15 on Perkins Street and is of the opinion the dark color is much more attractive than the
16 white palate.
17 • Likes the bulk, orientation and proportion of the building.
18 • A two-story building would not be a good fit for the corner lot where the Chipole
19 restaurant is proposed.
20 • Finds the tree concept discussed above very important.
21
22 Reed Finlay:
23 • Understands the landscape plan will need to show the connectivity to the surrounding
24 areas, particularly the parking lot to the west.
25
26 Dan Thomas:
27 • The Orchard Avenue driveway only allows for turning right in and the Perkins Street
28 driveway is only turning right out. A person can still turn into the driveway from Perkins
29 Street.
30 • Property is unique in the DZC.
31
32 There was DRB discussion about the driveways and ways people can maneuver to and from the
33 freeway.
34
35 M/S Nicholson/Morrow recommends the following with regard to the preliminary design:
36 1. Provide for good pedestrian connection to west parking lot;
37 2. East/west sidewalk be separate from the driveways such that the main entry is on the
38 corner and continue the west sidewalk to the public sidewalk;
39 3. Encourage creative solution to finding appropriate trees for shading purposes;
40 4. Use darker color palate on building;
41 5. Project architect explore pulling part of the building out which would be a nice amenity for
42 users that would still allow for sufficient light into the building. Structure does not have to
43 be a solid roof but rather `expressed' on the edges as a solid roof/architectural form
44 where the element could be shaded for solar orientation and still provide shelter for
45 people using the outdoor dining area;
46 6. No turF, use aggregate of some kind or some other non-water using element;
47 7. Consider some permeable paving instead of concrete/asphalt;
48 8. Creative tree selection; Preference is to see more street trees planted in connection with
49 Perkins Street streetscape improvement project possibly in the planter area in front of
50 Pear Tree shopping center;
51 9. Ask applicant to consider installation of art display area that could be indoors or outdoors.
52
53 Motion carried by all AYE voice vote. (5-0)
54 7. MATTERS FROM THE BOARD:
Design Review Board March 26, 2015
Page 6
1
2 8. MATTERS FROM STAFF:
3
4 9. SET NEXT MEETING
5 The next regular meeting will be Thursday, April 9, 2015.
6
7 10. ADJOURNMENT
8 The meeting adjourned at 4:14 p.m.
9
10
11 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
Design Review Board March 26, 2015
Page 7
,
,`'
� �
�,
.
.,.,
— - —._ — -- — —— -- — - --- — ��. ..t .� ��Y#_�f � ,__ — ��—_
_ .
u�
ti.
�. „ti.m q
' � ��:
�
� � ���� �"� . � ��
� � ��.��"� �� �=�:x� �.s �`�� � �,u
; � , � � � �
;
. �
� � �
� - - - - - ' - - - - - � �� �, � �� �`�:�`_° - -
�a �
�� + -� �4 ������`�„ ;:.�����.,���
_ 1
i G �dc,����,�°-���.� � �
t�
���
� � � � ,. ��
�k� � �, �,,�
�����, �� �^�� �, ��;�� �
�� ,
. . . . : -- Y w . . . ..
Y �
. . . . . � t q S� , � � . � . � .
. .. . ... .. . .. , .. .. � ..�,qro �, .. t. 'K'�� c� { y��,,ft�0.'`� � ... .. .. . .,. .. .... .. .. .
. . . .. . . ... ..� ..�` �.' �� h`},v, k .. � ..::" � ..� .. � :� . .. . ..
1 i
,,.,.. �, -.� PC,4NTANUS X ACERIFOLIA
,�CER RUBRUfV! Ct�NDCtN PI.ANE/SYCA�II�R�,T'lF.
0
RED IVIAPLE;TYP. a
o � --"�- SITE ACCE55
TR�SN ENCL�SURE
�
� ;.
;
,$.
� ---�--�"`�
.� . � . ,,.
� �� 6 ��� �
� � � � �° � ' � .�/ � � �--- � � �
� � � � ��-- �: � �;'
x �� .
° �
� � ` � �� �� �
,. ��
� � �
� , �
� , �� � �,
� �» � � ` �
�� _ ����
� � �, � a�. ��� � �
m �. ,.-� � , �
� �� m, RIATIVE SNRUBS
, �
#° ' . � �, �C TURF,TYP.
, : � � �
i �^ � �
i r
� � �
� " °
i •
I �
� J �
w �, rn .� °
.. .. .�� � . � � � . . . . .. � � E � � � � .. , . .. �
� �
.. . �� v � .r . .
. . �.�r � .„ a . .
fi
� � . � �' �t Ij
. . . �' � Y� . . - , � � . � . .
t
" . . :� . . � +� �, : . . �..:�.--� � �. O O C O ` �., .��i . . ... . _..
I � �--� I a O I�
� °�°�°° = ��
, �� �
, I ooQO ��
_ > �' I � � �
��,�. � �° ��:.,. E--� . �. a o 0 0 �- '� �.
� �. �.� M k � �; �
� ° � 0000b00000 ,� ; ��
ACGESSI�LE PA,RKIIV� n _ � �
�a ,' PLANTER&
����
*
�
4 �
0 0 � � o
� � _ � _�_`��
. � �� � ����� � ��������� � �
.� � , _ F �_�
� � t
� � �w�e ' `�
'' , "s � ����
, � : �� , � � .
_ „�
� �xl ��:� � � E� �
� fi�N � �����.
� � �� i � �� � � �� .E �r� . ��� �
� � �� � t �.,,�:� � - �
� . ���,, �
„
� a s „� � y
��TC�ccES� �AR � � 201�
_------ � ����������x���
___-_� - \ ��rt,�i���x����������������..�i����°
� � SITE PI.AN
1,�_30�s���
. �
14344��Y��STREET �������.� �°+�`���`��'�
SUITE N0.204
onnaHa,�E ss�s�-�aas UK(AH . ,
� �
TEL: 4fl2:895A878 �cc� ,�w
� FAX: 402.895.9561 ��5�������.� �'�'a x�e-
� www:fhaarchitects:com
i -
_�_.�
_-
_!�!
__�--------�
' ---�'� SERUICE ENTRANCE
� � �
� °'" P�ANTANUS X ACERiFC?LIA
� �
. L{�IV�QN PLANE J SYC�NI�RE,TYP.
E
< ❑ �
� ' � �
KITCHEN �
i
( � ` � � �CER RUBRU�1
n �� ; �tED MAPLE,TYP.
C}FFICE ° � '
i�l �� ,
Z � ` !: �
w � � � q
� � �
Ca �
� �
� < ,
' f -�(�'•'--� ��- ��
- ��,�
� �
000c�
� $_� a!�o a , ��-�-���������
, 000 � -
� � �� �= , �
� ���� �_ o000 .
; �� � o�o ; � ; �
, � � � ; I�
' - � ��� a�o
, � �
� _ � �
0000 ; !
,
i D�N►NG ' Co k . �
� 00 <000000 (70 � �s� `r� � �
�_ , �,.,�_�. s.,
I � '
_
� EN1"R�NCE �3C}t}RS
�� �� � � � � � � ; „ � ��a � � � �
�� ��� � � � :. . �
�
� � ; � w �� � � � a � �
w
� � �� ���. � ; � �< u , �
t � : � � x z,: < PATIC}�EATI@l�
r.. �
��—s�--� � �:,� ,�.�.,
.,.� e. ��„r , �;� , m.� e, �, .�.�
� � � � �� z. �, , �, ��..a x���_ - �' u- u ar � �
- —'
- — �
� ;
FLqC1R PtAN
1j16°=1'-Q'�
, !
����� <<�„��-rR��-� ��IIPC�TLE ��t���.�,
�ui�r��c�.�o� t� e�
c�n��,�Nt�,�v� ����7-�sov ��IAN � (
i�� nc��.����a%� � �` r �, aa�;
:... �.
cdX rafe'��i��clt-�i 19a�.°"io-?�'�q4`�!`, ;. �' . "�°`��
� � � � ' � C . , .; ,.... .�, .., C�� a � .
. .. ..�. .. . �� .i ..: :.. ! r : �7 r..�l I t<..! F 1.:.( . . .. .... . .. � .. .. ... ..... ... .. �.:. �»A.„a..�.�,�"°" � . . ... �... .
, . . .. _ .,.,.. .... �. � .�� ..: .. �.� ��. . � . � � . .
. . — ...--- - ------- � --------...------- � ------ ---._ . .� .. . . . . .. . _i-. ... .
r�... ,,
� , 4
.�._ �
--- -- `� -----�..___ --- - — - - -- _—_. __ _.__
—_ ---- -_ _ --- _- -- __
_— __ _--- _.--
; i
;
r., . r
_ �i�TEI�IC��' 1=1NiSH �.E{:aE�1C� ' '
c_ _ _
STUC�t�#1: fkNE PEB�LE FI�IISN, P�II�TE[�VI/FIITE
�TUCC{�#2, FINE PEB�L.E FI�I�H,,PP,If�TED PPC� KNI��ITS ARMC7R
ALUIVIINUM �TC?REFRON I: �1l.UNIINUM ST�REFRQNT tV1!/iTN CHARC4�AL FIRIISN
� T.O. PARAPET „
— �.�.9'-�`�`�7"`
�=-- STtJCCt7#2- _
� ; � � �nJ � Ir'0��� SICaNACiE
�
k ___ ��r�cc��r�.
I n���-��c�i�vc��v _
. - _ � � � .�, � � _ _ � � �
, _ , . . , . `�"�.�.s�rc���r-RON�r ;-; �
. ,�_ , , . . _ , — �:c���
. . ,
.
, _ _ , � ,
'" , + `. .. ``,. �� a;�un��r�unn
, , , : - - , ." � ' � s-r�r��F����r
� , ,_ . _ .
,- f - � t r � � ;, w�oa si����
. ' � , � � FINISHE[? FLQ{�R �
, ;. , ,
, , , �0{}a�,�,, �
EXTERIOR ELE1lAT1�N -1NEST
1/$"=�,_o,�
. .
14344��Y„STREET ��I�dT�E ��`�4a Q��,�
� �UITE NO,204
UI�AHA,R1E 68137-2$05 ��{�AH � � .,
TEL: 402:895:0878 �`ff �:
F�x: �a2:a�5.��s1 03/26��015 �AN�
, www:fhaarchitects:com
_ ��"����3l��"�i� 7`f'
� � ��,t�� � ��� � � 4$ ��4 .. � . . . ..
� �
; � @e�������,,,,��yy,x::'��: �h t:` V ¢° � � 4� �
` � � a�,�`�d �� ,,:a.t�s. Y2�: . " `'" .: v..,, . . .
�
. . . . . ; t, ... .. .. .. .. . .. .. ..
ao�k
c ���
�..�� , � �� , ��
�
�.,�
�p p �
` ����H1��� ��" Sar�� �
���
�, �'�� rx. W ��
��:.
.. .. .. � �l '�.b�b�'`��',t^� 1; �� � q '. . � : .. _. . . _
�
Ye
t;� .,n°` d�i�ix.��.. 7, t,t: �Jn 'A"d"`�\� �. .
�� ' �}'�" f�� fC ie�t�''°' Y� ,��' ' y:_,
' � E �,.,. :�y, yi . �h� Y� , f �I<<i�rl,��flfYi ,.,,..... . . .
� � �� 1 � t�'9 4
�� �.� � �������,�Ys� i¢��� i�i�'t��� �.,..�..,...�.
' ��' �C r� � ' twe;�;
�
. �`�{��U"4�7�Z"t %'"12 x I II�I �p I 41 . ... . .
I'
� ���f����,�d���� q�; 4 �
v�r'P���$u ' �;.
:�"� : .
�wti =� z �
v � t� �
� � ���
� ti ���{�^ � ; � �
i, . q °
. ....... �. i G .�7.3�4 'tt���l� I I � I ... .. ..
k } I
�
���
� '� ,...» . ..
..� .. . t �t.�" v.i . .. .
��
.. . .. .�y� .. . . . .
.. . . �...r x . � .. . . . . . . . .
. . ., , �.... . . . . .. .. . . .
�
.. � � � �������.�; � ., ,.� .;,,..:� : � .. . . .
p �, ,
���.r
. �. . ,.. .��F�y.i.: . . . . . . .
� , � ,tiN�..; �v,-���i .;� i ���ti . . .. �... . . . � . . .
,. 4 �
� � � .. . ... . ... .. �: ..
2 '�,
. � .•.,� ��., tiw �n,.
1 i 4�'¢�` 'YS�d����$'�d d�a'�er���¢s���8 B� '`���
p � �
� � �i ���� 4��� � � p� � S � � . . � � "
i
I„� �r�ti ���
� .,
',:
� �.,�: �
, ,^ _ � � � , �,.!<<,w � x
.�.� � �
_.. .�... �
.. �� z:-
�"'���� . �`��'�� { � � � � � �
,
� � �� ���s�Sq r�z � �
_,�., °�,� •
�,����_� � �
� � z
� � , � ;�
� °'^'^^�+� � ,.e r + � � �
��
. . . "" , �, . . .. . . . .. . ... . .
. . . �..a� .,y . . . . .... . .
�,N�A �
� .. . � .. , . ,;.�: ,� . . ..
BEFO�tE�� � � � �
� �.,..,�. A�li��„ � � ,.. t... � � �
�, W'� , �.�
�.�� ` � �,. ��a r� �a.y . � i�
... �....��� C . ' aa � .. . . . . . ..
_ �
� � 1 t� ""'? Y`���' . .<, ' � '� 1?,5 . .
. ,
�
; , ;
. �:. ���i�c���d..�',. di; � .. '� y.,""i" w�a� ��{. � . . ... . .. . . . .. � � .
� i
�C ,�aS��,i�� ." � ^ �.�"' � �� � �� -�r ?�,. ?,..., � X`
� � �t1`�t s{r;�^...
t � , �,;.wv � >.',s' f'�'4 t�}3,�. �, ,a' �,v�a���.d x: A .. ..:. {, �,
t� �� :�, „�„r,�„ ...a`.�.' 4„� � � ..;, k< ,, � �j � �..
ry = t; �
�. ��:s. ��.����.�. �.b.. .��. ..;�''�K,.�. a,..'.�.,: ..;z, t .:?Y �+.„ r�S �. �.�q, . , �,� �.. . ... . . .. . . .. . . .. .
. . . . ti.., .y, { i}�^^�. _ l �2"`', . . i" � ,�,sy�ktj.. t�„ .i�* &�,� �.��,r x�iti ¢d�' . . � . � . . .
^
.. . , .: x� �.�,. .:' .i��4.�.: �. .�� 4� .. . . . � . � .. � .. �
.
�''�,�'L*r
t�'a'°�`
� sl- � � v.,>�. � ,� � � � z ,
t.' �
�. � � .� '� ,� . � ��` ���� � ��t
� ; ,
,: c.��
�a.
� onAn � . 3 t � � � ��' 's� . . ...
... . .,.:: ,� ,� � � . . . .� . . .� .. . � � . . . . . .
� ���
, yt,n .„ '^ ��t,
.v, .� � ' �� . . .
� �;. �s. ,� � t. .: ,�; .,. . . � . . . .. � .
� ..„. �.�: �., � . . . . . � .
�. ,.� . �: 1�. ,..�,_, . ..,...�. �"�s���� � n. �' :^ ' �k., ,.,i�,. a�;�,i�' . . . . . .
� � .� ,. i . . . . . . .
� � ��►��3�� ST�EE1° � '��������� ` � �� � � � � � �� � �
�
.. � ,w,..... .. , � y{'1l�3t �k . ... . . . . . .. . .. . . .
� ' �
��x��� �� � . ,
�*��a��{te�� �� �
�� � � �a��.;� � _
_
, �..,.�.
� ��� � t
�, _
� 3s� ��,� ����. � �
• i�?���`� } � ��'� ul
���4� 3�.�� : � .. .. . ... .. .. .. . .... .. . . . .. . . . .... . . .. .. . .. . . ..... . ..
Y
�'�Uj k't �`��'�t��� �• , 'i " ,I I{I .±al s. m �I . � .
t
t �� � �� � .i I� � 1 I'
. ,��:���•��� � � . .. ... .. ... .. . . . .. . .. � ... ... . .. . . -� ..... . .. .. ... .. .
. �j ' .. ... .. .... � .� .�� . . . . . .....
� `
! I f II
V �
. . ,.. '�q,��l�t. � �� t � I
y
��� v��5� ...�,�� i �� I �
e�
�
w n �X'
I � �
Bt;',
�., �, �.�o .,,,.� � , ��t
� . " .,,t ....t.,� ':�� . ... ,.,;,� �
. .�x u"' ,,.�.. .. ' ' . �:� �:.�.,",
B6FC>R� AFTER
n,
«� � ��.,,�� w�„�'�— z i,t���, .:; ��� �+� � ��r � � ti.�
� �� � : ~ , t ��'�--' �� � ,������ , � 3. �� �,.��°.
� snr�vunv � b�. � ��" '� '� � � t� ` ��
� .cea�tr � �� � ' ��� �, � ��m n � �� ; s�
. ., wS,'�;��? �,;� c�;�,��i +. � ' � sa ,.,.��a �., � .. . .... . . .. ............. . . ........ . . ... ..... . . .. ... .... . ........ . . . . ..... ..... . .
� '. a , ��� � ir `� �. �. � ,�,.� 3��, ' ��. ���3���,, i 5��.�, . . . . . ..
n
y �. , � � m �, ,. � k
t� - '� ,&�� t�, �*� � �i
� �l� � ; � �
�' re �..«� "�' �>., � m �r�v��,��`�� .z�`� �.� � ,�a�,�a.��� ,� �, � � 1�`�'�k � Y+a,.
u � `���``.' �,� � '' ���*` �.r � �,. oy�����• l ?.t "t ���, . .
� � � ,.� `: ' � 4 ; `�", t �,' °�� `�' �� �� 3��� ��
r
.a
� � ,� �� sus ar � � �;' � ,. �� M. � ��� s? � � >,�m` �' �
,
,r.
«°� .. `�c
� �.
��s , _,3�s: �';:� .�.�` mu�sa�a, �.s ,` .:, � �` ef �y�'� �5����,�z �a"_ �°��'�. ,p �.� � �
.. -. am.� , as� �. '..Ya °�'w�e,..'. �:�`
� �� � � . >�,,x,��. , .............. .. ...... ...... ......... ......... ......... ....... .. ....... ........ ....... ...... ......... ........ ......... ......... ... ........ ........ ...
� `..��,tit5 �,.��„u,..m,m, .
���� �` ' � GClBBI & PERKIRlS STREET' �ATEINAY STREETSGAPE STUDY A ��
��
�;.�S��k4 �' �
GATES 8„� �� ���g�''#������ UI<It�H, CALIFGRNIA � � a
_.:
�
� L����e '� �j��3 L�+'� .. ... ... . ��`��,�R� �` �"t'" '�.� .. . . .. ... . . . .
_'? � , 3 � � q a� ,� 4
� '� s�,.ti. �
'�',�s� , S�.s # i
. � � � ... � . . .
,� y; . ; �� . .
,t . ,- . ��: .
. . . ��� : .. . �+r wa v� `� � � l'"''�e�i��n'�� . . . . . . . .
. y..', . � . pl_�-.� L`� 5 . . .. . . .. .. .. .. .
� k '� � :� � ;�' '�J�#`+�^�^ ��.t��...�,� �,� . . . . . .
1 `^� ' � � " �' ,,, :.'�.: �� xh .
i ..�v,. . �, ,: � ..
� 7" � 4s
� . `S � : : .. ,,.r a.....^' �, } r .. � .
w
�.. � �
� ��
, , �
�
c
_. ._ ���. �. � _ _
� �,,.
,
� ���
,..,�` � (. �k;�:3 � .
k . ^ � G �� � . �
-� t
........ �l� .. :. � �L� � {., ,. �J�g��,'`&J��+� , .,�, �. b: ge��. . . . .� ... , . . .. ...
,- n � ��� �� �
.. - . b � ;.�, `
(i" z� � ,� "" a t�t�� '�,*„ �* � ;.: t„
. ... �C ti � I�. ,e° .°g `� �3� '+ 'd `w " £ ��. ; .. . . . ..� .. . � . �
�
. "-� ;,2 `a�� i � �3"�^"c4,� r 3�ti � �' �..�,`� .
i�� .z:; �o � ,{ 'l k��`t`���4�J�y1���4} .�" .. . �C i.•.i', . . .
-�e. � U.�.� � �, .
� €��. c,..� ���,'ti`3,t,��,�."t�y?k�yJ.��`#a�i �y.�: ?�`�°
� j � ,{�>�u�`�"fi�,., ��+ '�;`���`�,.������;�. �,�*�, � . .. .. . .. .. . .. . .. .. . .. .. . .. . .
�. ` cz' � \r.`�+�}��, � *C'e��@���� � � � 4� .
t �
w t �, � �
_.... � �"��1a';�'���s�� ��'��'`,��'�,ya�. �ka �, `a , . . . .. ._ . .
., �� � , � � � .
� % t ,.z•�� u�
. �.�z� .`�� 1y ` ���: . . .
....... �� � � �� � �� . � .. . .. . . .. . . . .
r
� �
a �
�
y, a^ ,
� 'g�. �a i n �—i C �, Ps. . ,. � � *� ', . .
� a„�, �
i �� �;.
� '� `{ � r$ '�:.Y, r4, �3{�,��,t �# .. . . .
� � �' � ,
' � g -€ � f� :��'i ..' � �. E ,�:. � . . .
4�a
... f C � � . �,x t, rS t�§h a�"� �y�.`NYe�y� . . . .
� � .. � x� ,� :. .. . . .
,z �.: .� �. $r.A:, �c �,, '.�.... .d-r � . . .
� � r '��d,�� . .. .. .. . .
� �. � � �,����;��� � � .
t"�,.' � � : � �. 2����'�E�"t s e..��, , � '" .. . .
� � �- �. n ' �, �*� �
_ •
�����.. �'m�, ➢ v; o-Fda�.. *"� :,Ye P . . . .
x -C
T
�. �` � ' ���...���------a t ... . . . . . . .
��ti �� ,4 d ���4 � � � .
{
� �i'�A , q `g s�`t . .... � . . . . .. .. .. . . . . .. .. .. ..
j ' ' au s
�>' �,�;* �. t��4:...� w..,, ..;,�� � " � 1 ��, � . . . . . . .. ..
a � ',W `. .�„ " �} ^�,
�` �'
'e�� , . �f'`�"�'": � � �n �� �' . �.
�� � � d�� a����h' : ``� .. .. � . . . .
, a
�`�,, � ��,� , � �` m '� ..xl�+ c �: .
v
-��'*Y �'� " � ��. t°� � � . � � �.
L 4�g�°,`= �:n � # " �� . � . .. .. .. .
��.�- � �� ���? .�4 .. . .. .. � � .. . ..
�M
as. t !
� re.
;.
`��.' . � t �t�,.� :�.. . � . .. . . .
.. (� � � � � ..,. .. �fi. i- � � � � .. .. .. . . . .
s ,,.
�. "%a.y h y ;, �� � ,.y; . . . . .
��� I...A. r � . . .
.. �.�� 4 .i d i � . .. .
1 s} � i: � ��... t�'�n� � �k �i ,.., ; .. . .
.. �;�',� - ;� �.: � ' s �*�1��. '�a ., . � � . . . .. .. . .. - � ..
� �� �.� ; � .� : �
Nr
r� y
� ' 3� �.�;,l�,.,' tf ¢ „ ,:g :
� .� 3 h 4 ,�..
(—
�
�
Q��n �� �� � _ �, �
�, �= � � 4�, #t�� ��
; . . � � ,
,
��m E �
�'Y t�'�3 �3 ' � c"a :` �4�, � �+: e, ,f�'h`�' �.�s�+t . . . . . .
?� c� v?� S��{�Y ea et �'���«��a:.
� .+' ��� � � �� ��a �� x ,3��� @rjz �1P� �� � � � � � � � � �
� }
. �� 1 .t� I : .,,. � �_. r�,�i�c��z,.�,�� . . . .. � _ . . .
.t
; ; :�i ��-�� ����`�x��� �� 3
a I� � �t� � �i w h n�
�
_ �� f ���� ��y � �
�, t
\+
�
� �1 . .� t'9� e� �
� ��
� � : .. . . :. . . .. . . . . � . . . �� .. . .
5
t
tib."` �
� t
� 7 t ox k - ! ( y l� . .. . .. .. .. . . .. ..
i ,
k�t � � � �� � � ': � . . .. . ... .. . . . .. .. .
f ? �i �
1,..
�� � �;t ��4 '' . ... . ... . ...... . .. . ...... .. . ... .... . . .. .... ... .. ... ... . .... . ..
� �
',3,��.: r. ��.3 ���. '`'. �M ���ir �
.� •
� �t �.. � �' �� ����' � . � .
�.e.�.,�, ' �,�_ .�, „ ,,t '� . .
l 7,'�,�� � � �
�v a�?
.. "&fi� « „ ♦ �� �y4 .. . . ... .. � � . ... . . . ... . ... ... ... .. . . . . . .� . . .. .. . . �
�� � �= �� , ��
x
. �;:
� �; � � ���� , �� �
� � ,G � � �� ���� �.w � � } Xa
, , �
.
� i � � � z �� " ,�k°� �,
�
,{,: r�� � r,���
�; ,
�k. �
�4,.� � ' � ,�n �r,���` �'� '�o �a
�
��� � v�� „�'� . .
� � �i � � r
4 u
�� G �,� ��� � � �� �.
� �� �
..
_ .
,
� , � �� ,-
.� � , � � Q � �,�
��; ��1 �k � , � " � �1 � � �- �h . . �
`�� � � �`�r"'� � , t ,� t� . �
�` � 7 ^ Q Q� �E� �" ���� � � ` ° �
� n'. t' . ; ,�' m+� � �y m , `?�
v � �
p �, .. . , �. �a�,�"�7� �, �, ;.�� �' '� ,� �.* . . . .. . .. .. . . ._... . ..... . . . .. ...... .... . . . . ... ...... .. ........ . ....... . . .... . . . . . . . .. . _.... .... ..
� �' �
� �� � .
�
Q�,e, f ��. f�� ��.. �{ � � 3 S"�ai p � ;�� k1
W i % � 4
� ,�, n , ;. .'� 45 1t . � . � . ... ... ... ......... ... .. .. . ..... ...... ... .. . ....... . .... ... ..... .. . . .... .. ...... ...... ... ... ... ..... . .
� „
� N���, — ��� � ,y� �e',� 1 � l�,ia . . .. ...
,�. '�, � ��r.C,
_ P
O�, } �
^�R,� � � k k r� �' �
�y�� a
"" m
i' ` �
F ; � ... � ��� � s ��a � '� � � i�..y� ...
� .� , . .. .. .
� a _ .
, � t
- ,» �
�
� �
I — w��aa, 9r �;.�.aa �«.�<s � ;
..,�...�� x� �,. . .
�� ;� y,!�.. M";�
14
� {
t
,3 . ' . ' . � �T 3 �3��`�. �' �* .
'� �R" Y� x
_, _.
....� .. {� .:
� 5
. aT ., `� � ��� �� ��k �'
. .. ��� �' .: 2 , .� . . .. ... . .. . ... . . .... ............
�
i _ �v .. ��.,
, ��f . �. � r..�.M
xa�^. wr ` „e
�n i' . . . .. .. . ... .... . . ... . . ... . . ... .. .
�w� �, 1Q1 FREFWAY ���y� � �
;�....� � � '�
��ty � u�iah City of Ukiah, CA
Design Review Board
1
2 MINUTES
3
4 Regular Meeting April 9, 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 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
18
19 Others present: Dave Hull
20 Jared Hull
21
22 3. CORRESPONDENCE:
23
24 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes from the March 26, 2015 meeting will be
25 available at the May 14, 2015 meeting for review and approval.
26
27 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
28
29 The DRB is required by the City Code to review and make a recommendation on all Site
30 Development Permit applications.
31
32 6. NEW BUSINESS:
33 6A. Jared Hull Use Permit for Single Family Residence — Hillside Project, 315 Janix
34 Drive (File No.: 707): Review and recommendation to Planning Commission on a Use
35 Permit to construct a 1,997 square foot single family residence and 795 square foot
36 attached garage at 315 Janix Drive, APN 001-040-73. The exterior would include earth
37 tone painted stucco siding, a metal roof, and landscaping. The site is accessed by an
38 existing private asphalt paved road. Since the property is located in the Hillside District,
39 Planning Commission review and approval of a use Permit is required for new
40 construction.
41
42 Assistant Planner Johnson provided DRB with project comments from Member Thayer that are
43 included in the minutes as attachment 1.
44
45 Planning Director Stump introduced the proposed Project and provided background information
46 about the Hull/Piffero subdivision parcels and corresponding residential developments in the
47 Western Hills of Ukiah:
48 • The project requires a Use Permit as opposed to a Site Development Permit since the
49 proposed development is located in the Hillside Combing Zoning district (Hillside (R1-H)
50 that requires approval of a Use Permit for new residential development.
51 • The Planning Commission is required to approve a Use Permit to determine the project
52 will not have an adverse impact on the health, safety and general welfare of persons.
Design Review Board April 9, 2015
Page 1
1 The City does not have the authority to require approval of a site development permit in
2 this regard unless the project is found to cause adverse impacts to health, safety and
3 general welfare.
4 • The DRB is asked to comment on the design aspects of the project as a courtesy. Of
5 importance is DRB's comments related to the colors/materials, architectural features,
6 landscaping and the siting of the house that has a `stepped-down' design.
7
8 Vice Chair Liden:
9 • Requested clarification the proposed project is subject to the Hillside zoning regulations?
10 • Asked about the excavations that have transpired over the years since the Hull/Piferro
11 subdivision was approved.
12 • Asked about the water supply?
13
14 Planning Director Stump:
15 • Confirmed the project is subject to the Hillside zoning regulations.
16 • A major subdivision was approved for potential development of certain parcels in the
17 western hills in the early 2000s where three homes have been built with approval for
18 another home that has not yet been constructed.
19 • All homes constructed in the Hull-Piffero subdivision were closely evaluated with regard
20 to environmental issues/concerns, safety, aesthetics, landscaping/landscaping
21 maintenance, and/or other related Hillside zoning/subdivision compliance issues
22 including photographic simulations in association of what the subdivision would look like
23 visually from the Valley floor/other key areas at buildout.
24
25 Jared Hull, Applicant:
26 • Referred to the site plans and advised of a revision related to the roof deck.
27 • The intent of the design is to make certain the home blends in with the hillside
28 environment as much as possible.
29 • Talked in more detail about the `stepped-down' design concept, building height/footprint,
30 and color scheme/materials proposed for the residence and as provided for in his project
31 description that is included in the staff report.
32 • The footprint of the proposed house is less than his father's home and the home that was
33 built for his grandfather that are both located in the same approved subdivision. As such,
34 his home should a lot less visible than the existing homes.
35
36 Member Hawkes:
37 • Asked if the applicanYs proposed residential unit is the last that can be built as part of the
38 Hull/Piferro subdivision.
39 • Asked about access to the walk-on deck?
40 • With the proposed design, it is unlikely the roof will be seen at all.
41 • Will the interior ceilings inside the house be pitched?
42
43 Dave Hull, Property Owner in the Hull/Piferro subdivision:
44 • Development in the Western Hills has been a tedious process and has come a long way.
45 • The proposed design for the house is very similar to the Thomas project approved by the
46 Planning Commission in 2007.
47 • The proposed house would be equally as visible as far as 'the site is concerned' as those
48 of the two existing homes nearby, but less visible overall from the Valley floor because it
49 will be built more into the hillside unlike the existing homes. His home and that of his
50 father's were built on a flat pad rather than into the hillside.
51 • Confirmed Ric Piferro has a lot that is currently not developed and this is the last lot in the
52 subdivision that can be developed after the Ceja project is completed and showed the
53 location thereof. While site work has been done for the Ceja project the house has not
54 been constructed. Cannot actually see the Ceja site unless one is out on the freeway and
Design Review Board April 9, 2015
Page 2
1 now that the vegetation has grown considerably since the site work, the site is much less
2 visible.
3 • The Jim Nix property that is also located in the Western Hills is not part of the Hull/Piffero
4 subdivision.
5 • Noted related to the photo simulations completed for the subdivision project the
6 perspective homes that could be developed was based on a 5,000 sq. ft. assumption.
7 The houses that have been built were nowhere near this square footage. Each of the
8 parcels range from six to seven+ acres.
9 • Provided information about the site excavations and the extensive measures taken to
10 replenish/protecUpreserve and maintain the surrounding landscaping/existing related
11 water tributaries by using native plants and precautionary measures so the sites and
12 corresponding areas affected would remain in a natural setting such that the sites are
13 screened from view from the Valley floor and well-managed. Comprehensive measures
14 have also been taken over the years to make certain all under-bush has been effectively
15 cleared in an effort to protect against potential wildfire occurrences/hazards, provide for
16 irrigation, replanting of native plant species, particularly manzanita to assist with
17 screening and aesthetics and/or other sustainable measures to reinforce to the
18 community that the property owners in the Western Hills are `good stewards' of the land.
19 • Has planted approximately 5,000 trees since owning property in the Western Hills.
20 • Water supply is private and talked about the well and the pump system.
21 • The homes are connected to the City sewer system.
22 • Fire hydrants are included on the parcels.
23
24 Jared Hull:
25 • Has just revised the plans related to the roof-top deck such that it would be a roof-top
26 patio and talked about the materials that are proposed for the patio, examples of which
27 are included in the staff report. The roof-top patio will not change the visibility as the
28 structure will be `tucked in' on the north side of the building site.
29 Referred to attachment 4 of the staff report and preliminary plans and talked about the
30 'stepped-down' design, location of the roof-top patio and access thereof as well as the
31 elevations and orientation of the house in connection with the location of the roof-top
32 patio. Looking at attachment 4, the roof-top patio would not likely be visible from the
33 Valley floor considering the slight slope. The roof will be low-pitched compared to his
34 father's home that has a much steeper roofline.
35 • Chose a flat metal roof with a slight slope with an environmentally friendly color (Oxford
36 Brown) as opposed to a pitched roof so it would not be visible and would blend nicely
37 with the natural terrain.
38 • Will consult with the architect about the about ceiling height/type for the inside of the
39 house.
40
41 Member Nicholson:
42 • Inquired about how the terrace fits with the design?
43
44 Jared Hull:
45 • Explained the design of the terrace and/or patio roof area.
46
47 There was discussion for comparison purposes concerning the design of the proposed project
48 and that of the approved Thomas project since the two projects are similar.
49
50 Member Morrow:
51 • Requested clarification the photo simulations were completed as to what the proposed
52 project would look like from the Valley floor?
53
54 Vice-Chair Liden:
Design Review Board April 9, 2015
Page 3
1 • Asked if the Planning Commission will see photo simulations?
2
3 Dave Hull:
4 • Photo simulations were completed for the subdivision phase related to visibility of
5 potential homes that could be built within the proposed subdivision from different vantage
6 points on the Valley floor and explained the technical aspects how this was done.
7
8 Planning Director Stump:
9 • The photo simulations that were done for the subdivision project were based on the
10 assumption the houses that could potentially be built as part of the subdivision have a
11 building footprint of 5,000 sq. ft. and did not have a `stepped-down' design. As such, the
12 proposed new home having a stepped-down design would essentially be the desired
13 development type.
14 • Related to the proposed new development, it may be the Planning Commission will revisit
15 the photo simulations prepared for the subdivision project in the early 2000s. The
16 technology associated with photo simulations has progressed since that of the early
17 2000s.
18 • Staff's preference is a `stepped-down' design for houses to be constructed in the Hull-
19 Piferro subdivision and the Planning Commission did approve a `stepped-down' design
20 for proposed Thomas project in 2007 for a home designed to appear as though it were
21 inserted into the natural landscape.
22 • The proposed project could be further `softened'with landscaping.
23
24 Dave Hull:
25 • The reason the `stepped-down' design has not been used for most developments in the
26 Hull-Piffero subdivision is because the excavation is extensive and costly. The `stepped-
27 down' architecture is an expensive design.
28
29 The DRB reviewed Member Thayer's comments.
30
31 Vice Chair Liden:
32 • While the Hillside Zoning regulations talks about maintaining the natural undergrowth
33 does not specifically address maintenance of planted vegetation.
34
35 Planning Director Stump:
36 • The City has a standard condition of approval that all landscaping required for a project
37 has to be maintained.
38
39 Dave Hull:
40 • Explained in detail measures he has taken over the years to address wildland fire risk,
41 long-term soil erosion control, ensure a balance related to plantings having an impact on
42 views from the Valley floor versus natural/native plant species, maintenance and
43 irrigation of vegetation. All of the above is always a `work in progress'/ongoing.
44
45 Member Morrow:
46 • Asked about whether the pool is considered a separate issue?
47
48 Planning Director Stump:
49 • The pool is an element of the proposed project and will be considered as part of the use
50 permit for the residential unit.
51
52 DRB consensus:
53 • Likes the project concept of a `stepped-down' design.
54 • Approves of the color palate and materials.
Design Review Board April 9, 2015
Page 4
1 Nicholson/Morrow to approve of the Jared Hull use permit for a single-family residence, as
2 submitted with no changes in that the project meets all criteria for hillside development. Motion
3 carried 4-0.
4
5 6B. Nominations for and election of Chair and Vice Chair
6
7 M/S Morrow/Nicholson to nominate and elect Tom Liden as Chair and Howie Hawkes as Vice
8 Chair of the DRB. Motion carried by all AYE voice vote of the members present(4-0).
9
10 7. MATTERS FROM THE BOARD:
11
12 8. MATTERS FROM STAFF:
13
14 9. SET NEXT MEETING
15 The next regular meeting will be Thursday, May14, 2015.
16
17 10. ADJOURNMENT
18 The meeting adjourned at 3:55 p.m.
19
20
21 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
Design Review Board April 9, 2015
Page 5
1 ITEM NO. 6A
Community Development and Planning Department
city of Zlkah. 300 Seminary Avenue
Ukiah, CA 95482
planninq(a�cityofukiah.com
(707)463-6203
2
3 DATE: May 14, 2015
4
5 TO: Design Review Board
6
7 FROM: Charley Stump, Director of Planning and Community Development
8
9 SUBJECT: Request for Formal 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/ File No.: Munis 940
14
15
16 REQUEST FOR FORMAL REVIEW
17
18 Staff requests the Design Review Board conduct a Formal Review and make recommendations
19 to the Applicant on a Site Development Permit application.
20
21 In response to the DRB recommendations at the March 26, 2015 preliminary review meeting,
22 the applicants have revised the plans and submitted a formal application. The DRB
23 recommendations are listed on page 2 of this Memorandum and the draft minutes are included
24 as attachment 2.
25
26 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
27
28 The proposed project involves the construction of a +/- 2,300 square foot Chipotle Mexican Grill
29 restaurant on the vacant parcel located at 596 East Perkins on the northwest corner of East
30 Perkins Street and Orchard Avenue. Site improvements include on-site parking and landscaping
31 are also proposed, as is outdoor dining along both street frontages.
32
33 The Downtown Zoning Code identifies the proposed building as a "side-yard" building type, in
34 that it occupies one side of the lot and uses a "shop-front" frontage type setback from the
35 sidewalk to allow for outdoor dining on both frontages.
36
37 ANALYSIS
38
39 General Plan. The General Plan land use designation of the parcel is Commercial. This land
4o use designation identifies lands where commerce and business may occur. Residential uses are
Formal Review
Chipotle Mexican Grill—Site Development Permit
NW corner of East Perkins Street and Orchard Avenue
March 26,2015 Design Review Board Meeting
File Number:940
1
1 included as examples of allowable uses within the Commercial designation. Specific Uses are
2 precisely defined through the uses allowed in the individual zoning districts.
3
4 The project site is located within an area identified as a Primary level gateway in the City's
5 General Plan.
6
7 Zoning. The zoning for this parcel is UC (Urban Center) — Downtown Zoning Code. The
8 application is seeking a number of exceptions from the Urban Center standards and therefore a
9 Major Site Development Permit is required. These exceptions include: 1) One-story rather than
10 the mandatory two-stories; 2) The project proposed more than the Maximum allowed parking; 3)
11 the proposed building is not parallel to the principal frontage line for 70% of its length.
12
13 Staff requests that the DRB include a recommendation concerning the requested exceptions.
14
15
16 DRB Preliminary Review — March 26, 2015. On March 26, 2015, the Design Review Board
17 conducted a preliminary review (draft minutes attached) and unanimously formulated the
18 following recommendations:
19
20 1. Provide for good pedestrian connection to west parking lot;
21 2. East/west sidewalk be separate from the driveways such that the main entry is on the corner and
22 continue the west sidewalk to the public sidewalk;
23 3. Encourage creative solution to finding appropriate trees for shading purposes;
24 4. Use darker color palate on building;
25 5. Project architect explore pulling part of the building out which would be a nice amenity for users
26 that would still allow for sufficient light into the building. Structure does not have to be a solid roof
27 but rather `expressed' on the edges as a solid roof/architectural form where the element could be
28 shaded for solar orientation and still provide shelter for people using the outdoor dining area;
29 6. No turf, use aggregate of some kind or some other non-water using element;
30 7. Consider some permeable paving instead of concrete/asphalt;
31 8. Creative tree selection; Preference is to see more street trees planted in connection with Perkins
32 Street streetscape improvement project possibly in the planter area in front of Pear Tree shopping
33 center;
34 9. Ask applicant to consider installation of art display area that could be indoors or outdoors.
35
36 Attachments:
37
38 1. Project Plans
39 2. DRB Draft Minutes, March 26, 2015
40
41
Formal Review
Chipotle Mexican Grill—Site Development Permit
NW corner of East Perkins Street and Orchard Avenue
March 26,2015 Design Review Board Meeting
File Number:940
2
city of Zlk,iah City of Ukiah, CA �� �r �"
Design Review Board
1 � � � � �
2 � MINUTES
3
4 Regular Meeting March 26, 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, Nick Thayer
12
13 Absent:
14
15 Staff Present: Charley Stump, Planning Director
16 Michelle Johnson, Assistant Planner
17 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
18
19 Others present: Dan Thomas
20 Reed Finlay
21
22 3. CORRESPONDENCE:
23
24 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes from the March 3, 2015 and March 12, 2015
25 meeting are available for review and approval.
26
27 M/S NicholsonlMorrow to approve March 3, 2015 and March 12, 2015 minutes, as submitted.
28 Motion carried by all AYE voice vote. (5-0)
29
30 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
31
32 The DRB is required by the City Code to review and make a recommendation on all Site
33 Development Permit applications.
34
35 6. NEW BUSINESS:
36 6A. Chipotle's Mexican Grill Restaurant 596 East Perkins Street, (File No.: 842) Review
37 and recommendation to Planning Commission on a Site Development Permit for
38 construction of a 2,000 square foot Chipotle Mexican Grill restaurant on the vacant parcel
39 located in the Downtown Zoning District at the northwest corner of East Perkins Street
40 and Orchard Avenue. On-site parking and landscaping are also proposed, as is outdoor
41 dining along both street frontages at 596 East Perkins Street, APN 002-200-38.
42
43 Planning Director Stump introduced the proposed Project:
44 • Today's DRB meeting is a request for preliminary review for a Chipotle's Mexican Grill
45 Restaurant.
46 • The proposed Project is located in the DZC UC (Urban Center) zoning district. As such,
47 the Project does not comply with certain corresponding zoning standards where the
48 applicant is likely to seek exceptions related to 1) the two-story building requirement; 2)
49 project is over-parked; and 3) 70% street frontage is necessary for buildings located on
50 primary streets.
51
Design Review Board March 26, 2015
Page 1
1 Reed Finlay, Project Architect referred to the conceptual site plans and commented on the
2 proposed Project:
3 • Explained Chipotle Mexican Grill restaurants have high standards and guiding principles
4 when it comes to quality of food and restaurant design. The company's motto is to
5 provide 'food with integrity' by helping people rethink the way they eat and goes to great
6 lengths to make certain their food is sourced, healthy and without out toxins.
7 • Chipotle restaurants are designed to be clean/simple one-story buildings that function
8 well, provide for nice landscaping amenities, sustainably constructed and pedestrian
9 friendly. Their building methods are reputable and all associated materials are quality.
10 • Is using the City's Master Tree list.
11 • The Project wili feature patios using `natural' materials and umbrellas for shade purposes.
12 • Likes the location of the proposed new restaurant in Ukiah.
13
14 Member Hawkes:
15 • Sees the building would likely comply with the 70% street frontage requirement if the
16 building is turned.
17
18 Planning Director Stump:
19 • Would have to look whether turning the building complies with the 70% street frontage
20 requirement where the intent of the standard is to get buildings up on the street front as
21 much as possible. In this case, the building scenario differs because it is a corner lot and
22 Orchard Avenue is almost as 'prominent' as Perkins Street. An exception to the street
23 frontage requirement is likely to be supported since glass and patios would be on both
24 sides of the street frontages.
25
26 Reed Finlay:
27 • Very important to note the restaurant would be located at a very key intersection so it
28 makes sense architecturally to have the dining area face the corner.
29
30 Member Thayer:
31 • Noted the 10-foot public right-of-way area on Perkins Street may not be correct from the
32 standpoint the Perkins Street streetscape project plans are not in place at this time and
33 asked if the public right-of-way in this area will change?
34 • Related to access, if there is really no opportunity for a vehicle connection to the
35 restaurant site, there needs to be a pedestrian connection from the westerly
36 underutilized parking area to the restaurant.
37 • Asked about compliance with the City parking standard of one tree planted for every four
38 parking spaces and why this was not the case for the underutilized parking lot area.
39 • As part of the landscaping plan would be nice to see the adjacent property and how it
40 connects in this regard.
41
42 Vice Chair Liden:
43 • Requested clarification for the entrance being located on the corner?
44
45 Member Hawkes:
46 • Likes that the entrance is up close and not in the parking area.
47
48 Member Nicholson:
49 • Questioned access to the rest of the shopping center. If a person wants to drive to the
50 restaurant, it would be difficult to get onto the freeway without some maneuvering and
51 forethought. Is there a way to get access to the parking lot?
52 • Supports having well-defined pedestrian access from the shopping center.
53 • Related to having a streetscape plan in place at some point referred to his proposed
54 landscaping modifications that are incorporated into the minutes as attachment 1.
Design Review Board March 26, 2015
Page 2
1 • Related to the proposed landscape plan was not clear what are trees and what are
2 shrubs. Supports having more substantial trees and is of the opinion this approach would
3 provide for a more pedestrian friendly environment as well as soften the corner area
4 while leaving it open enough for the advertising of the restaurant.
5 • Referred to sheet 2 of his proposed project modification plans related to the building as 'a
6 user' where his preference would be to pull the awning outward so it covers the outdoor
7 dining area, which would provide for a shelter but leave an opening between the building
8 and the outdoor dining area with the hope it would not compromise the mass/size, scale
9 and proportion of the building. Supports the property owner and architect consider this
10 design amenity. Important to get the design concept because of the potential effect this
11 building will have in the neighborhood and with it being located at an intersection on a
12 primary gateway. Is of the opinion allowing for nice pedestrian entry from the shopping
13 center area and having a dining area that is sheltered creates more of a 'sense of place.'
14
15 Dan Thomas, Applicant:
16 • Acknowledged access to the parking lot is problematic. The major tenants in the
17 shopping center have a reciprocal parking agreement that requires their permission to
18 make changes and is unable to make this happen.
19 • Acknowledged the existing Redwood trees were planted years ago for purposes of a
20 driveway.
21 • Requested clarification the City easement comes right up to the south end of the planter
22 area?
23
24 Planning Director Stump:
25 • The concept of the Perkins Street streetscape project has been discussed as it relates to
26 the proposed project. Did not want to require the applicant plant trees/landscaping in this
27 area only to possibly have it removed when the right-of-way is widened and referred to
28 the site plans.
29 • Confirmed the public right-of-way in this area will change with the Perkins Street
30 streetscape project.
31 • While there may be many other associated reasons for a corner entrance, part of the
32 intent with regard to the DZC is to recapture the feel and look of the way buildings used
33 to be constructed on corner lots.
34 • The DZC requires the opening and/or way people access the building be 'off the corner.'
35 • While the building is not completely on the corner the entrance into the dining patio area
36 is coming from the corner and is required.
37 • Two project components that require consideration are site circulation and the fact that
38 the Orchard Avenue property line is askew and is not a complete rectangle.
39 Consideration must also be given to the 10-foot public right-of-way in front on Perkins
40 Street and this is the reason no landscaping and/or trees are shown on the site plans in
41 this area.
42 • One would think the retail establishments in the shopping center would want the
43 business the restaurant could generate and willing to consider possible changes with
44 regard to the parking lot.
45 • People desiring to dine at the restaurant will likely use the underutilized parking area
46 near the Chipole parking lot if the restaurant parking lot is full. It may be rather than
47 trying to access the parking lot and finding it full that restaurant patrons will begin to
48 consistently/automatically use the underutilized parking lot area.
49 • Allowing for an effective pedestrian connection from the underutilized parking lot area is
50 very important/critical.
51 • It may be related to the City parking standard requiring one tree for every four parking
52 spaces the reason this is not the case in the underutilized parking lot area is because of
53 the large Redwood trees that exist in the area.
54 • Showed location of a possible pedestrian walkway from the underutilized parking lot.
Design Review Board March 26, 2015
Page 3
1
2 Assistant Planner Johnson:
3 • Referred to the revised site plans dated March 26, 2015 and the draft Perkins Gateway
4 Streetscape Study rendering incorporated in the minutes as attachment 2 and talked
5 about the City easement/public right-of-way area on Perkins Street in connection with the
6 planter area that fronts the property.
7
8 Reed Finlay:
9 • Asked what type of shelter awning is being proposed?
10
11 Member Nicholson:
12 • The shelter could be a solid form over the dining area so people can sit in this outdoor
13 area rain or shine.
14 • Restaurant should have an architectural connection that fits with the existing shopping
15 center buildings.
16 • Likes the proportion and scale of the proposed restaurant building; building has a 'clean
17 design' that expresses the company brand well having very strong imagery.
18 • Preference is the darker color palate as opposed to the lighter (white color) as
19 demonstrated in the site plans.
20 • Referenced a Chipole restaurant in Los Angeles that exhibits a nice example of pulling
21 the dining area into the fa�ade of the building and this is what prompted him to think
22 about having a shade structure over the dining area that can be pulled into the landscape
23 area for the proposed restaurant in Ukiah. Such a structure would provide for a
24 'sheltering feel'to the dining experience.
25 • Has observed many contemporary casual restaurants in urban areas where the interior
26 back o f the outdoor dining area is pulled from the facade to allow for a sheltering
27 area/sidewalk experience without actually being on the sidewalk. Finds this approach to
28 be a nice feature and is architecturally appealing. May not be sufficient room for the
29 Ukiah Chipole restaurant to do this and as such supports as an alternative pulling the
30 building outward over the dining area.
31 • Some Chipole restaurants have created an art space to display public art. If there is any
32 way to do this for the Ukiah Chipole having this amenity would be great for the
33 community. Display could be interior or exterior.
34
35 Member Thayer:
36 • The Chipole restaurant is essentially the 'firsY building a person would see driving into
37 town discounting gas stations. What a person would identify with is the signage and
38 mass of the building. The lot has been vacant for a long time so the new development
39 should be reflective of what is going on in town. An art display/mural opportunity would be
40 a nice amenity. It does not have to be part of the building but rather of some other
41 element type that reflects what is going on in the town/county.
42 • Wood application should reflect what architecturally fits/is adaptable with Mendocino
43 County theme. Understands the wood connotation/concept but questions ebay wood
44 used as siding on the building related to quality, durability and aesthetics.
45 • Encourages applicant to be creative with regard to application of the City Master Tree List
46 and to consider other possibilities that is more in keeping with the Chipole restaurant
47 theme and location of the building. Projects are required to use the City Master Tree list
48 for parking lots so as to ensure adequate shade coverage.
49 • Landscaping species not related to the parking lot should be emblematic of what is going
50 on with the building architecture.
51 • The planting area that immediately fronts Perkins Street is currently just a 'placeholder'
52 until City plans related to the public right-of-way area for the Perkins Street streetscape
53 improvement project are developed. The placeholder area will essentially get reworked
54 as part of the Perkins Street streetscape improvement project and street trees will be
Design Review Board March 26, 2015
Page 4
1 selected and planted in the sidewalk planter area at this point. As such, not knowing what
2 form the public right-of-way area will take makes it difficult for applicant to formulate
3 landscaping plans.
4 • Consider planting another tree in the western elevation area.
5
6 DRB/applicant discussion about the use of ebay wood as siding on the building.
7
8 Planning Director Stump:
9 • Confirmed the public right-of-way is 10 feet from where the sidewalk is located and 10
10 feet into the site. Project applicant not required to plant any trees in this public right-of-
11 way planter area because this area is not part of the project.
12 • Related to the Perkins Street streetscape project the intent is to wait and let the
13 streetscape improvement project plant the trees that are selected.
14 • There will not be any widening of the roadway on Orchard Avenue.
15
16 Reed Finlay:
17 • Requested clarification the requirement of the Master Tree List will be everywhere except
18 for the south and east elevation areas.
19 • Chipole is all about plants and trees and proposed to plant trees in the frontage area, but
20 understands it is not possible to develop the frontage area with landscaping at this time.
21
22 Member Thayer:
23 • The intent of the Master Tree list is for adherence to parking lot trees and street
24 frontages; accordingly, it could be that the street frontage is essentially not part of the
25 project or that a major exception would be requested. If an applicant wanted to do
26 something different, it would have to be proposed and go through the process. The
27 proposed Chipole restaurant project will go through the process so with this being the
28 case would encourage the applicant to be creative in the selection of the landscaping
29 palate and what would work appropriately with the 'Chipole brand.'
30 • Referred to the recent Burger King remodel/improvement project and is of the opinion the
31 landscaping palate is inappropriate without consideration of what might work on the site,
32 Ukiah's climate and is consistent with the Burger King brand.
33 • Would be willing to provide landscaping suggestions. Again, would encourage the
34 applicant to be creative with regard to selection of the landscaping tree and plant species.
35 • There are landscaping species that would work with the architecture and also fit
36 with/contribute to the Perkins Street streetscape project, preferably drought tolerant,
37 native plants.
38 • Would recommend no use of turf.
39 • Supports application of the lighter color palate.
40
41 Member Morrow:
42 • Is of the opinion Chipole will get foot traffic coming from the west where the hospital is
43 located and new courthouse will be built, etc., so it may be useful to tie in some type of
44 footpath to the project so as to draw people to the restaurant as opposed to just walking
45 across the parking lot. Having a connectivity would help with the aesthetic view in the
46 western area.
47 • Related to the site plans, can vision the patio 'totally roasting' in the summer and
48 supports focusing on shading and heat management.
49 • Likes the concept of the 'set-in' patio area as a way to keep this area cooler. Has seen
50 this type of feature for restaurants in Arizona.
51 • Supports the idea of using landscaping alternatives in place of lawns, such as granite.
52 • Is of the opinion the driveway entrances to the restaurant will likely be problematic for
53 people getting on and off the freeway.
54 • Preference is the brown palate for the building.
Design Review Board March 26, 2015
Page 5
1 Member Thayer:
2 • Demonstrated the location where a footpath would likely work that would draw people
3 walking from the westerly direction.
4 • Would like to see 'more reflective paving surfaces/permeable paving surfaces.'
5 • Important to have pedestrian access from the shopping center.
6
7 Member Hawkes:
8 • Asked if both driveways are two-way?
9 • Supports application of the darker color palate. Is of the opinion the darker color is more
10 'subtle.'
11
12 Vice Chair Liden:
13 • Supports application of the darker color palate, partially because he likes the shape of the
14 building. The building is also one of the first things a person sees when coming to Ukiah
15 on Perkins Street and is of the opinion the dark color is much more attractive than the
16 white palate.
17 • Likes the bulk, orientation and proportion of the building.
18 • A two-story building would not be a good fit for the corner lot where the Chipole
19 restaurant is proposed.
20 • Finds the tree concept discussed above very important.
21
22 Reed Finlay:
23 • Understands the landscape plan will need to show the connectivity to the surrounding
24 areas, particularly the parking lot to the west.
25
26 Dan Thomas:
27 • The Orchard Avenue driveway only allows for turning right in and the Perkins Street
28 driveway is only turning right out. A person can still turn into the driveway from Perkins
29 Street.
30 • Property is unique in the DZC.
31
32 There was DRB discussion about the driveways and ways people can maneuver to and from the
33 freeway.
34
35 MIS Nicholson/Morrow recommends the following with regard to the preliminary design:
36 1. Provide for good pedestrian connection to west parking lot;
37 2. East/west sidewalk be separate from the driveways such that the main entry is on the
38 corner and continue the west sidewalk to the public sidewalk;
39 3. Encourage creative solution to finding appropriate trees for shading purposes;
40 4. Use darker color palate on building;
41 5. Project architect explore pulling part of the building out which would be a nice amenity for
42 users that would still allow for sufficient light into the building. Structure does not have to
43 be a solid roof but rather 'expressed' on the edges as a solid roof/architectural form
44 where the element could be shaded for solar orientation and still provide shelter for
45 people using the outdoor dining area;
46 6. No turf, use aggregate of some kind or some other non-water using element;
47 7. Consider some permeable paving instead of concrete/asphalt;
48 8. Creative tree selection; Preference is to see more street trees planted in connection with
49 Perkins Street streetscape improvement project possibly in the planter area in front of
50 Pear Tree shopping center;
51 9. Ask applicant to consider installation of art display area that could be indoors or outdoors.
52
53 Motion carried by all AYE voice vote. (5-0)
54 7. MATTERS FROM THE BOARD:
Design Review Board March 26, 2015
Page 6
1
2 8. MATTERS FROM STAFF:
3
4 9. SET NEXT MEETING
5 The next regular meeting will be Thursday, April 9, 2015,
6
7 10. ADJOURNMENT
8 The meeting adjourned at 4:14 p.m.
9
10
11 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
Design Review Board March 26, 2015
Page 7
-----
PLANTANUS X ACERIFOLIA
ACER RUBRUM LONDON PLANE/SYCAMORE,TYP.
RED MAPLE,TYP. —
� SITE ACCESS
TRASH ENCLOSURE
� �_ '
� — —
I I
PERMEABLE PAVING
O ❑ o I
NATIVE SHRUBS,TYP.
n � � �
� � PERMEABLE PAVING
U �
0
PATH TO CONNECT WITH ADJACENT I •
PARKING LOT&SHOPPING CENTER I I
� � �0� �
����
o- I °�
� ���0 I
��� O
� � ����
� 6666 I
�0 � ���
� � o
0000000000 �
� � L � L
ACCESSIBLE PARKING � �
PLANTER&
�, � ���� 0 �� �� � PATIO AREA
I ���
�
,I
�
�
SITE ACCESS _----—
�—__ ___
�_— SITE PLAN
______------ i��=zo'-o„
. .
14344"Y"STREET CH I POTLE ��P�T�
SUITE NO.204 V �
OMAHA,NE 68137-2805 UKIAH •
TEL: 402.895.0878 � F �
FAX: 402.895.9561 04/22/2015 +�A N�av
www.fhaarch itects.com
�i - � �
� SERVICE ENTRANCE
� �
PLANTANUS X ACERIFOLIA
LONDON PLANE/SYCAMORE,TYP.
��
� � KITCHEN
��
� ACER RUBRUM
n � i i�l � RED MAPLE,TYP.
OFFICE I I ❑ c I
� ������
���
z � ��
w � �
�-
0
� �
�- _ �
I
i
i
�i O O O O i">'
� PATIO SEATING
lu r•-----��
O O � O
�I � � � �� �
� MEN � � O � ��-�%
I - � r -----•� ���
I � i_�-----,J
I � II � � � � �
�
I � � � �
I � � �----- '�
000 �
'� � � o000 � �
� DINING
� o000000000 ���
Q�➢ C�r -= Q°➢ �- � �
I
� � i
ENTRANCEDOORS
L --------J
� .
� �• �O �� ��
PATIO SEATING
�
�
I
FLOOR PLAN
3/32"=1'-0"
. ■
14344"Y"STREET CH I POTLE ��P�T�
SUITE NO.204 V �
OMAHA,NE 68137-2805 UKIAH •
TEL: 402.895.0878 � F �
FAX: 402.895.9561 04/22/2015 +�A N�av
www.fhaarch itects.com
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
IPE OR COMPARABLE LOCALLY
SOURCED ALTERNATE WOOD
� � � � � OO � � � SIGNAGE
STUCCO#1
METAL CANOPY
T.O.STOREFRONT �
10�
ALUMINUM STOREFRONT
i �
i �
�_ , � STUCCO#1
i �
�/:,0= ;O:\\ PATIO FURNITURE
` � IPE OR COMPARABLE LOCALLY
� �„_,�,
� ��°'�' SOURCED ALTERNATE WOOD
� i
� i
� �
FINISHED FLOOR �
100 0
EXTERIOR ELEVATION-SOUTH
i/a"=1'-0"
. .
14344"Y"STREET CH I POTLE ��P�T�
SUITE NO.204 V �
OMAHA,NE 68137-2805 UKIAH •
TEL: 402.895.0878 � F �
FAX: 402.895.9561 04/22/2015 +�A N�av
www.fhaarch itects.com
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
� � U LI O � �� � � SIGNAGE
STUCCO#1
METAL CANOPY
— � — — � — — � � � — � _ T.O.STOREFRON�T
109'-0
IPE OR COMPARABLE LOCALLY
� � � � � � � � � ' SOURCED ALTERNATE WOOD
ALUMINUM
STOREFRONT
� � � � STUCCO#2
1
_ FINISHED FLOOR�
100'-0'
EXTERIOR ELEVATION-EAST
3/16"=1'-0"
. ■
14344"Y"STREET CH I POTLE ��P�T�
SUITE NO.204 V �
OMAHA,NE 68137-2805 UKIAH •
TEL: 402.895.0878 � F �
FAX: 402.895.9561 04/22/2015 +�A N�av
www.fhaarch itects.com
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
� � U U O ��� � � SIGNAGE
STUCCO#1
METAL CANOPY
� � � � � � � T.O.STOREFRONT �
� � � 10�
- ' �; � � � � � �
� . � � �
� � ALUMINUM
� STOREFRONT
� � � � ��.�
�
� i IPE OR COMPARABLE LOCALLY
� � . . � . �� .. �', � � � � � � � � � � �� SOURCED ALTERNATE WOOD
� � �' � � � � � � � FINISHED FLOOR �
10�
EXTERIOR ELEVATION-WEST
3/16"=1'-0"
. ■
14344"Y"STREET CH I POTLE ��P�T�
SUITE NO.204 V �
OMAHA,NE 68137-2805 UKIAH •
TEL: 402.895.0878 � F �
FAX: 402.895.9561 04/22/2015 +�A N�av
www.fhaarch itects.com
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.PARAPE�T
119'-0
STUCCO#2
� U U � � O� � � . SIGNAGE
STUCCO#1
. _ _ B.O.SOFFI�T
� � � � . . - , . ' � � � � �' , . " . � . , � � . ` 111'-0
, � . . . ' � � ' � � � . � STUCCO#1
� ' � � � , � � � . ��� . � � � � � � �
� � � ` � � STUCCO#2
� � � _ � � . � � � . � � � �
� � � � . � � � � � � � � � �
� . �� - .
� � � � � . � .. � . � � - . � ,
� � , � � � � �
� _ � � �� , � �� , �� � � � �� � � � ���,,.= ` � � , .� � � �, �_ � � '
� � . � � � � � � ,�„�E�.»� , � � � � � � - '
� �� . � ' � � � � � � �� � ,. : �� � �
� , . i
� � �, . �� � � . �. � . � ', � ,� �' � . � , , . �, �, .� ' .
� � ,. W � � . " � ��� � � �; � , � � ,� � � � ' : � FINISHED FLOO�R
100 -0
EXTERIOR ELEVATION-NORTH
1/4"=1'-0"
. ■
14344"Y"STREET CH I POTLE ��P�T�
SUITE NO.204 V �
OMAHA,NE 68137-2805 UKIAH •
TEL: 402.895.0878 � F �
FAX: 402.895.9561 04/22/2015 +�A N�av
www.fhaarch itects.com
I -
T �4 -
' . � —_� - -.. �
�R � �- •1�
• � � -
• •. ° ' ` r `' -
_ } '" �"
• ` - � • � -
. - r� _ -
, r � � . '�r. •� . s .. �"- 'r. �..
. ' � r�T . . . , . ■.. � . ' ,.,r� • •�
_�%- � � � .. , . . i' '';�..:�s •}
' . . � . . �' � �..
- . , �.`. -,. �
. -. . Ck11pOT�.� , ' � � ' _ •
ar.
Y .. . ? ' ' . ' , � - - ,� 1 _�
_.� �
�" y�'�`+'� . . .. _ � - J .� . '�- n� . r� 1�_� �'�•* ..�� .
_ i��.
� '� �� _ _. . � - _ I �• 1 . � .. .. � - ' -� -•• �
`� � �_
- , � I - �._- _ � - -
- - ' � �-. _ � •
��r `� `�!
_ _� . � � � � � J�� _y ���f_ .
� .� F . . � � � � �i`� - �l � � `�
1 �'.�~ .
' .- .�~' i � ` '-• � i ��{ � �
.� _ � � .�� . .I _ _.ti _ � Y _ - . • _ _ + �
TA Y?f' ' " .� _ M�'^'� _ . � !-.! � �
' �� - ' � . ltir�f r -
_, .. _ i �"�'�i� �" "'' ���ti `:_ . - � �� . "
...r�• ,�.r� _ s� ' , !
_ . ���`� _ -:-��-."�'�'._=�.�'�#�� �— -_ -_-- � � --�,`�" 4,;;�'- � _'� �. r
'� • t , .ti� - - -�-- . , -�- �'*4r. _ ��• �� � ,
�� �},_ �
� � - � s-� - _ ---
: . � ��lt„�' 'l ., -.1..�_�-� - -
� - ��''-' - - �•x;:.� �. �.- ..
_ -��st�� - � • � �" •- .�
�yl�w� ti -
. _ _ _�Yi�-'���4'� ��L�~ • � - `�rW
_ �Y 3�'w��
■ -
ARCHITECTS
,� .
. �. �
. . � .:� � Q
,,• ,.
-� �� �
.. = :
� : �
,_� , _ .
. - ,, _ _ � .
, - . . _ . - .
.. . • - w� �s , � �
, Y�
� ' ' - J'_ }4 � � .
_ � + ' • .�. • `
_� . . � CHIP4TLE - .
--�� � -� _ _ _ . - �r-::":'?�
-- -_-�_ _ � _ _ - �
� ` --- - _ -- \ r
� -"� - -� _ � - � � , .
:r° -- � -�-'-: _� 4 � +--���`'•�'-_ �, +� . } * � t' �
,_
1:J �` _, _ _�!!� - +!7'- - ��' - -- �;P'''�'�`�'w.�� .�.—— — � i �—�� ��_ _-.�.�.��
� �-��` _ - `r-=--�- �� _- _ - --' ; M • . - � . -
y L� y�/ } yF ����_.
h. 1�r5 S�
! �1.
� ' - . r- _ ���+U. �ry�{G�. ���lla�. �'1��5�. �7��iU. r'4�F¢l(a. �ll�g�5�.��U. �'}��4�. •�.f��• f' 1 1�' -.�f�-�5
' � �� k '�..'��'� ��Y _ _ 1- � ' '• -. ' ��•, � �S,`
_ ' . . .n - - �. ''�u
�'r�• �'{r f` . . :!•��•_�• - ' �'{ :'�' . ��{ r'r. i.j�5;��•i:'{�.
�� � � \ �. �.:_ : wF '_��.' !.. �••[ _�.'�'o� �:ti':�•':s',��_r f:y ti• t.Z t.'i' ` �
�' � '�5.. .%.'•' 'Y_ _ � :.i.j'. K�:
� - 1
- �� �
_ _ � � \ r �- � " � � _ _
t
�:�
~�' �--!�,� _. F.^r � ' / _ � ' _~_'"_'— �� ��r
f�-q'�t^'i�" . '�_��-"Y.r��"�a• _ _ �' '
- - .�r i . - _ - - - F � --
't -. -
� Y +�- _ - � + � .
��
� �
ARCHITECTS
,� .
. �. . �
. . � .:� � Q
,,• ,.
•
-� �� �
.. = :
� . �
X
.. _
'� � y _
��y �I �
�•} f• Y �
.�. �_ . ��� � � _ _
� � � u� �
{ i f 'd v_..
.� ` ;
I ' _ * , _
.. . 7•:
R
r,..�
. ' 4�.ri i
r � �-
• .
� � . I
� '
1
r • �� _� � . �� .
� , _ —
i
R
� � � - �� � CHIR�TLE � � � � �
~ �-� � . � � � r � �
�- � ; _ss��w�' � k� .
� ' _ � �
�. -
� � — ._ _ , _. L � ` �
_ 4 _ , _ _ __�. - ° , , . -�
' �"•` � w --'� - +�'�'�(y�/� �'F -`.- _
. �' �}•� w � .. "��' �•4. � _ _._. .. __ _�" L� � �' { - ,,—l� �` q � rt.
+� - :.).ti�.- i C ���� t . .. �
� � uxti�_ -� _
_�±�tr.� _�. _�.�'rtii- �%��`i:�..��{.- �.wi.� _I.�k�:. !�s�f.. _+�'!4{�:� _s.�c�f.. _xYi�... � � -�-� � "''w . �'� . �► — —
� ���' t � �����-- �� , M
. + ` r r � r
* " , -.. 'I�..'�F � . �It:."� •' � f�i � •4:. - � . �`�
- :�r� � '���' . . . '- ��_I.�.- . r. •Y. �r•• . �:?`
�'��• ' ' :w,r r� . ^'+� ' ��' .=� :1�:�•-'�� '.:� :ti� .{�.�. `.� ' r,�r�:'.. '.:: � :f�.��' - _ ,;; . �,. �ti _
.� r':.•' • 'l.:�.�_ , •'f:• '' '�1'' r�` ' y R�.:",{�'� ' 1��''` r�� .�? ���r'�'� . - �K'r� j , �' �• ti��f/, i � � ��
_ `.;; t'+' �.r� _''4 �. � •`! '.:M' JS`,a.�:,� ' , ��� �:.r,S;y ,r:, ,•R.. ...:y_ •• ,t .{ _+.�•:yi7.. • .
.!•i,� .�,��'��• 5'�:.�#..¢!,7*� .y:•`�. . , .�.•��_ � '�.ti � i`. �
_!.�'•'•1. _ � �
� l�
• .` _ —' �i. . . �' '� "_ . .� ._�— . _ _. ._ __ �-
■ —
ARCHITECTS
,� .
. �. � Q
. . � .:� � Q
,,• ,.
-� �� �
.. = :
y
� , .ti � � �
r.. t�� `+
� . : � k k '—
. i' • • �
. . . �, - .'� �J [ '
_ �L_ ,�' r, t ,; � �I'F����1.4 �'l1���4 k -
. . r ' � r _ " ■ � �
L
r a
� . . ' ' '
_ _ Y " � #: � _ _ I
� ' ' �''.� . � • �
_ � � - ' ^!� �'� .��,� •
. � �i r
; • � . ti � }r�_ ` .�J s � i� f- � 1•
� _ . :� ti, 'r � ��� � ;{'-1 ' 4� . � ,_� _ # .
} ��f� _ ' _ . � 3 �� r �_ f � � +
.'l* � _ . .` __ .��+ � • � i' _` ' I �- y � ��i����1�{�� �� �'� ' �{ �
�Y• '� - -r �• �ti '• � . a- + � �
.-'�? z�''�{ �,�y 1 , y�•' l. � T - � � �.��, '•� a1 � �
. .,�': �_ .3�. .+ � �'C I 'Y .f' i•y�� � — —
! � "
�I�k. _�,.. ,� 4�, �y ��.
� �` yy5 + ' ' '_
'.��-�P �r_l' L �'—�T'7L_.
�f
� •L y • a
' � �,,� ��`{�1.�,��r _
:� • �� r t{,
� M1y��{ 4 � '� y 4 +'• ; • #� �
i� ',
� i��� �F _ ' � � ` }�� +
i+� �. #�
{r-Y'+k +�4'•�r�' ._� h }+}� �1�i �� �
'��f�� �} �-}F y��#'r �: �,Y - 'J ��r j.��� ''���+� ��± X.
.�'� �� ��}+ ��i t��f•`���.. .�' }�f��.':4 , *F r
■ +
_•��� . '#� .�� ��ii��� �•�'���- ,�4r� * � 2''r� , ��,�k. }
.r� �� - C ��� "L'�~* ' �' �.�,+• + t-';� y t�..�
- � J�'�, •}' L � R ��� �t ' � �l *� • � ,{��{
� i� � . ��} • � �~�r �
� .��+ ��� a�i� . + +rF�����'#�.-��*+ �k
� �y-+� � F �.�� #
��i-+���� ���� r'�•�+ �#� ~ ��7� '4'i , _*•,y,�
`�'� '�� } �� ,`*,� 'i �a"�� �� ����
�. # .. ,� '.E+ .
� -F'� �
•}t a ` �}� • 4� +r+
.� J� * �f _{ '��
��. •
.�
■ —
ARCHITECTS
,� .
. �. ' Q
. . � .:� � Q
,,• ,.
-� �� �
.. = :
I -
T �4 -
' . � —_� - -.. �
�R � �- •1�
• � � -
• •. ° ' ` r `' -
_ } '" �"
• ` - � • � -
. - r� _ -
, � � � :�. •� . s .. �� ,r., .
. ' � r�T . . .. , . ■.. . ' . ' ,.,rt • •�
_�%- � � � .. , . . i' '';�..:�s •}
' . . � . . �' � �..
� - - � �
- . f CNIP� ' , , ,,. A�:• -
Y - _ " - - '�' � -,�e
, � .
� ,-„��� � . _ � .� . -�_ f1 x . �� � _ _�-,• *-+
-- ' ■`- - - � - - � �.`i . . . � _ ' � _„ `
_�-
� �_- - - -
• � � �.-- - �
, � . .
_ _ � ' I � �= - � ., .
�� .- - __� ';t
j �' y.� ' � � -_.J�� ���f
� _ `�
�` . t • • .- _� 1 � �• � � _. . _ r ' r .
- _ �~� : '.! ` -.y � ��f � .�/{ _ � , �
� �� ��. . . ;' . _ y�"� _ -� - ' . __ . - � r-.! �+ ��
' �� - ' � . ltir�f r -
_, .. _ i �"�'�i� �" "'' ���ti `:_ . - � �� . "
...r�• ,�.r� _ s� ' , !
_ . ���`� _ -:-��-."�'�'._=�.�'�#�� �— -_ -_-- � � --�,`�" 4,;;�'- � _'� �. r
'� • t , .ti� - - -�-- . , -�- �'*4r. _ ��• �� � ,
�� �},_ �
� � - � s-� - _ ---
: . � ��lt„�' 'l ., -.1..�_�-� - -
� - ��''-' - - �•x;:.� �. �.- ..
_ -��st�� - � • � �" •- .�
�yl�w� ti -
. _ _ _�Yi�-'���4'� ��L�~ • � - `�rW
_ �Y 3�'w��
■ -
ARCHITECTS
,� .
. �. �
. . � .:� � Q
,,• ,.
-� �� �
.. = :
� : �
,_� , _ .
. - ,, _ _ � .
, - . . _ . - .
.. . • - w� �s , � �
, Y�
� � � - � - J._ }4 � � .
t '
� , , Y
• � ' �
_ . . � CHIPOTLE -
--�� � -� _ _ _ - �r-::":'?�
� ` - — --- - _ -- : r
�! "'� ` .
_ � f F- �- � x
il' ' �-• =y�; . � _ --��ar •�'.'_ �R�q� . �
` _�ae►� - �a-- - �' - -- ]���'. �s= —� . .,��_
1:J ' � - —• :��- �� — - •:�.`�' * �_ _','� �---- � ��.: _--.��
� �—�� ` " �— _ ` ;�- , .. �'; .�': • �..._: . _
,� ;s�`'�`'�� , , ;.-
�.d." .-33:'.. �': -t'`� -'s;
..;':,, ,d:; .At'•; <;; .�;�';,-�, > > a� s• �, �y�
� � �� �' ;�,y� ' _ . . , . . , , _ .. . .. . . . . . . _ .�, `�z"� .�•� k .�.•��' � .�;r ;` '�'� .i'•-F!!'��?r� �.:-.
�� �., J%t':�. `�: ;x`-���y` r,-.. ' a;",- _1. ti� - `.�:�L`�'d �'.i�..i.. �r,;`r ..
�#'tc.. •ti-�r��i�... p�..�i:s �?3's ,�`.�c►r:Y�[. ,u-�;r.::..
� �. - .:�'• _ � �;; -- b;=; �'�.�
- � � - ��� - _ '.�'�'-'���. . - =r'-=�x.: - _�'-�•'x•.•r,. - ^•�' _ .^�-��,'' - �;� �
�' � _ �-'�'-
� '
- ��
_ �. � � r r- - - - - _ -
���
_ ��- - ' _. F�'� � . r _ - � -~- -— �` 1�.
' f-�"-y,�r;�i!�*- --"•��---�...r,�.•�. - - ���_
- - .�._- -- ' _ -- - � � --
•� -. -
� Y + _ - _ - -
��
� �
ARCHITECTS
,� .
. �. �
. . � .:� � Q
,,• ,.
-� �� �
.. = :
� . �
X
.. _
'� � y _
��y �I �
�•} f• Y �
.�. �_ . ��� � � _ _
� � � u� �
{ i f 'd v_..
.� ` ;
I ' _ * , _
.. . 7•:
R
r,..�
. ' 4�.ri i
r � �-
• .
� � . I
� '
1
r • �� _� � . �� .
� , _ -
i
R
. � � - .. � CHIR�TLE � � � � �
~ �-� � . � � � � r � �
�- � ; _ss��w�' � k� .
� ' _ � �
�. -
� � -- - _ , _' _ � �
_ 4 _ , _ _ __�. - ° , . -�
' ' , �":� � �' --'� - y1�s '�' -
- � � { � �. •'�•���•��•f�' �� '�- `�' � C+ { - ,,—l� �` q � rt.
� ` 1 �'�-� �� "'ar
- •YJi ...k. ..Yj� ��� .5:� ,- 'R�.� 'St... •YL. 't':�.1 4_[�•_ .'tkr � ' _ , \i � — �', ' ` — —
`� + � . � �..._��., . �i�'-� . . ir . . . �� t_4_� � - - '� y �� '
C ��}�y,•� r: s �jJ� r r. 1�r � �� � } � ����—_ -! • �
li ���*���� �p h�\� W� ���� ��� , • � �'�♦ •4� ��' A ��i - _ ��_�.�� , . ��
�.'=. __ •.t ��. � . iy.`�• M�,�•'•� � _��� �3 i!�. ��',��4� � j i R �•; • •I.� ti `
�� . . 'µ 4 �! .� ��` •r• ^ �•� �` �'��r' f.� � ���4. �
� •" �' :Z'�y '.0 . ."� :ti' ��' ,r _ .�r .. '? �.k'��" ., -rJ. .^�{, .r +�`` • ' �
r.;.' ��.:'- ��_�.:;- �• .�` f•: '� . - .�, '.�;: ' .JJ. -�.ti *' - } � �
.r . . . � .. . � ... .. ...
`.' �;� 'S: - ' � ... .,,,°,t' _'.'�nr . -. ,,,�'t•-•.• ' .. ,'-��'r". �. . � . .
..7'• .1.��. ' S'�.•t��. .1.��r.L �1. , � �` �
. • :i'� .1.'• ' ' ' �
' ' �_y�J�^
. ' - ` -- ,�. �- -- - ` .___ _ _. ._ __ �-
� �
ARCHITECTS
,� .
. �. �
. . � .:� � Q
,,• ,.
-� �� �
.. = :
y
� , .ti � � �
r.. t�� `+
� . : � k k '—
. i' • • �
. . . �, - .'� '
_� ,L. . �� r, . - �M I��YL� � ��II����� k � -
� . � . � ' - 1 �
_�
� _ . - ,
- , - � . _ � � _ �: � . - �
�� � � �� . � . i
_ ' - - � �� �� .'�,� . �
, • � T ` ` - � ' ,i T
I }r'- � •'J ' • � � i� f" � 1.
=� a �� � ��� ~ ` �-� - �
�y��� , 4� �
7� � �_r � _ � _ ' ' ti ' y' �`TM1�� � 3 �� r �- f � � +
�{. 4 iM1 r• M1 _ F'� �� ' } � � , j � � {� _ r.�*�:y�' + �'� + � f
. .�� �•• f• ,a�� �. . .-5. • .+ �� • � i . r' _� •��'•'a'�r?�'y�} _ ����5� � � �
• • . . �'� 1iR :! � }f � • ' �r.• , � ��.�L�„�,, . 3 �
.� _ � ••.3 � '�� L
� r +�.�' • v - ' �Y``,;4'� S�-� :r' �
� iF � � T���M1 - _ _- ' — -
r .� .�� �s 4'r �y ��'� �
�.3, 'k -:,T-
��,_+ `o- 7+'� �` `ti� -•` .
Y�f�k '
5 '� • • ���74ir� � }�' F�114-•
t� �,4 k � .t,'•'�rL�1 -'��•'r~ . �i ~
� •k
l'�r ��i.', �• � } � �r+ *!
{�y. �4�• w��i�� Y�� ' .����' ~+ *��r v./� � .�Y•�
a ti t. +.� � } '�y ,.i �.. '++�5 y�y�4=,' � t f.� ;y+ '`�y+• '+7
�'?�+s . �_�ti ��� 'S •rti, " �� ' �* �y���� r.t+ } •.+ _��. i� X�
} �' rt}{ ` .F � i� .4+• ��_s • � �� ' n_ ' ..i�� #
r-y 4 `�
��, � • F *f�/ ' .�y
_• F�"a ! y�4j'4� y x �7+,_� ;� ' .�.� *� ti# - •���� _;k ;_`•
• '•'� �' . :�. ���+if' ��� �L `s- }� � �'M�' �`J-���Y;� +"� � ,F�ti
�, '� ��� ■ ��� a t � � � r L �� �} � ���i
}.�r �■#* ti �i �. �+ - y� � � i� �if + + 1
' i+� ' .■ � . ' i � , ��•. •�' r,_ _ _,�. ��i
� 4 •. ■
4 -zl�'• ' `��` �'�i' �t' + � i`; ' 4'i , _� _y��
'�f� -�- ={.+ , r � � .■ ��
� ;' ��� ` � :i * +"R, � n
• . � - -� ��.� , � �}y +� I•`+
'� �
`Jf . � :
•�•� - -F .ti�f�
� �
ARCHITECTS
,� .
. �. � �
. . � .:� � Q
,,• ,.
-� �� �
.. = :