HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRBM_04092015 Final ��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,�. .3• � �
Michelle Johnson
From: Nicholas Thayer <mail@lateafternoon.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2015 1226 PM
To: Michelle Johnson
Cc: Howell Hawkes(howie@pacific.net);Tom Liden;colin@morrowlegal.com;
---- --- - -- alan@andesignstudio:com- -- -- - - --- - - _ . .
Subject: Re: DRB Meeting Thursday April 9,2015 -Thayer unavailable
Hello Michelle,
Unforlunately I will not be able to attend today's meeting. Deadline for a client meeting tomorrow.
I have reviewed the packet for this project. A couple quick comments to consider from a landscape
perspective:
+ The applicant should be required to submit a detailed planting and hardscape plan. The submitted
plan is too vague as to placement and species designation.
+ Consideration should strongly be given to wild land fire risk, long-term soil erosion control, and
visual impact of plantings on views from the Valley floor.
+ Appreciate the Applicant discussing the use of native plant species, seems only fitting for the
site. The final landscape plan should reflect this point.
+ A performance guarantee should be given by the Applicant that species planted will be
maintained/irrigated to maturity.
Tf�anks and see y'all next time, Nick
Nicholas Thayer
mail(�a,lateafternoon.com '
707-462-5133 office
707-362-0680 mobile
On Apr 6, 2015, at 10:55 AM,Michelle Johnson<mjohnson(�a,citvofukiah.com>wrote:
Good morning,
I hope everyone had a nice holiday weekend. Packets were delivered on Friday; if you did not receive
one please let me know. For those whom would like to visit the proposed project site please contact
Jared Hull directly and make arrangements.
lared Hull
707-462-6506
jaredhullins@vahoo.com
Have a great week,see you Thursday.
i