HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Item 11a Attachment 5 - Design Review Board MinutesCity of Ukiah, CA
Design Review Board
Design Review Board January 8, 2015
Page 1
1
MINUTES 2
3
Regular Meeting January 8, 2015 4
5
Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue 6
1.CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chair Liden called the Design Review Board meeting to order7
at 3:00 p.m. in Conference Room #5.8
9
2.ROLL CALLPresent: Vice Chair Tom Liden, Nick Thayer, 10
Alan Nicholson, Howie Hawkes, Colin Morrow 11
12
Absent: 13
14
Staff Present: Charley Stump, Planning Director (present only 15
for agenda item 6B) 16
Michelle Johnson, Assistant Planner 17
Shannon Riley, Project & Grant Administrator 18
Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary 19
20
Others present: Francisco Sanchez 21
Nohemi Sanchez 22
Lawrence Mitchell 23
Holly Brackmann 24
Ann Baker 25
Linda Hedstrom 26
Jim Langford 27
Mary Stompe 28
Bob Hayes 29
30
3.CORRESPONDENCE:31
32
4.APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes from the November 13, 2014 and December33
11, 2014 meetings will be available for review at the January 8, 2015 meeting.34
35
M/S Nicholson/Thayer to approve the minutes from the November 13, 2014 meeting, as 36
submitted. Motion carried by an all AYE voice vote of the members present (4-0) with Member 37
Morrow abstaining. 38
39
M/S Hawkes/Nicholson to approve the minutes from the December 11, 2014 meeting, as 40
submitted. Motion carried by an all AYE voice vote of the members present (4-0) with Member 41
Morrow abstaining. 42
43
5.AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS44
45
The DRB is required by the City Code to review and make a recommendation on all Site 46
Development Permit applications. 47
48
6.NEW BUSINESS:49
6A. 499 North State Site Development Permit (File No.: 598): Continued from December50
11, 2014 meeting; review and recommendation to the Zoning Administrator on color51
board and landscaping plan for 499 North State Street, APN 002-152-07.52
ATTACHMENT 5
Design Review Board January 8, 2015
Page 2
Assistant Planner Johnson: 1
At the regular December 11, 2014 DRB meeting, the DRB reviewed the design aspects 2
for a proposed site development permit with a recommendation to the Zoning 3
Administrator for approval with the conditions that a c olor palate for the proposed building 4
facade and proposed landscaping plan would be submitted for review by the DRB. 5
6
Lawrence Mitchell, Architect and applicant representative referred to site plans: 7
The DRB recommended the landscaping plan include a Palm tree by the monument sign 8
and develop the landscaping around. Looked at Palm trees and could not find a species 9
that would be compatible and/or work in this area. Recommends substituting a Palm tree 10
for a Yuka plant and explained the proposed landscaping design for this area that would 11
include groundcover and boulders. Proposes landscaping having a blue/gray color 12
scheme that would complement the colors for the monument sign and building and 13
referred to the proposed landscape modifications provided for on page 1 of the staff 14
report. 15
Related to the existing ‘Hollywood’ wood shakes on the building in connection with having 16
a coastal theme noted such colors range from bleached white to tan, brown or black. The 17
existing Hollywood shakes are a bronze brown. Proposes to utilize the shakes on the 18
building and explained the treatment used to get that coastal theme effect/appearance 19
that would effectively lighten them. All shakes new/replacement and old will be treated to 20
match and illustrated the desired color. The treatment will be lighter than what is existing. 21
22
Vice Chair Liden: 23
Referred to attachment 1 of the staff report and color palate for sign and building and 24
asked about the trim color in terms of how dark. Questioned what the shakes will look like 25
next to the blue color palate selected for the building trim, etc. 26
Asked about the doors? 27
Requested clarification the shakes will be the same color with the use of new in contrast 28
with the older existing shakes. 29
Concurs it may be the blue color palate selected may not work and may need to be 30
reviewed. Supports making the trim a lighter blue and with allowing the Zoning 31
Administrator/Planning staff to revise the color palate if this is necessary. 32
33
Member Hawkes: 34
Cautioned blue is a difficult color to work with. 35
Is of the opinion property owner should not have to concerned about liability issues with 36
the landscaping species because people need to pay attention where they are walking. 37
38
Member Thayer: 39
Yucca Whipple is not the most pedestrian-friendly of plants. Would recommend a plant 40
species that does not have individual spines/thorns. The Red Yucca is a better choice 41
and a more suitable replacement. Yucca plants are available in different colors such as 42
yellow. 43
Can assist in the selection of a Palm tree that would be suitable for the site. 44
Recommends a Guadalupe Palm that grows to a maximum of 20 feet in height, has a 45
‘clear’ trunk and sheds older ones that is essentially a self -cleaning mechanism. A 46
Guadalupe Palm would be emblematic of the restaurant cuisine, would not get too big 47
such that the sign would be blocked from view and is hardy to about 12 or 14 degrees. 48
Related to the scale of the boulders proposed for the landscaping and asked from an 49
aesthetic and/or color consideration if the boulders are granite or cobblestone. Any stone 50
type would be more expensive than using planted material and questions whether or not 51
the boulders are associated with an ‘ocean front’ theme. It would seem the ocean front 52
theme can be effectively accomplished with plantings from a budgetary perspective. 53
Design Review Board January 8, 2015
Page 3
Further questions whether the boulders add that much more aesthetically to the Project 1
than if all the landscaping consists only of plantings. 2
Finds that the typical foot traffic through the landscaped areas to be potentially 3
problematic and could be a liability issue if certain plantings with spines/thorns are used. 4
Related to the corner area of the site for landscaping purposes identified some plantings 5
that would be appropriate and can make recommendations to the applicants in this 6
regard. 7
8
Nohemi Sanchez, Applicant 9
Would be fine with a Guadalupe Palm. 10
11
Member Nicholson: 12
The intent of the Palm tree would serve as an ‘identifier’ for the theme of the restaurant. 13
Finds the Project to be a nice fit. Has some problem with the blue color scheme in that 14
blue changes with scale, but this would not stop him from approving the Project. Blue is a 15
strong color. It may be the applicant can ‘brush out’ the blue color scheme t o get the right 16
balance and if that balance cannot be attained some tweaking of color may be 17
necessary. The Project is conceptually acceptable. If the applicants find the color 18
scheme does not provide the right effect, support they be able to consult with City 19
planning staff/Planning Director to revise the color scheme if this becomes necessary. 20
Would like to see the applicants able to get the right balance between dark and light and 21
in contrast with the blue color palate selected. 22
23
Lawrence Mitchell: 24
Referred to Sheet A400 of the site plans and explained the color proposed for the trim 25
and other building architectural features. 26
As shown in attachment 1 of the staff report the band that extends around the building 27
that is currently a bright orange will be a darker shade of blue (blue swede shoes) with 28
the ‘field’ (faded denim) of the building painted a light blue. The window trim would also 29
be a dark blue. 30
All three public entrances will typically be Mill finish anodized aluminum with clear glass. 31
Confirmed the treatment used for the shakes will make them the same color. The type of 32
treatment used will likely change somewhat in the sunlight. The idea of the translucent 33
treatment is to allow for a layering effect with the color such that the shakes will have 34
lighter and darker areas. 35
Related to the Yucca Whipple, the intent of the groundcover is to discourage people from 36
walking through planter areas. 37
The Palm tree should not block the sign from view and/or be a potential safety hazard. 38
39
M/S Nicholson/Hawkes to recommend Zoning Administrator approval of 499 North State Site 40
Development Permit File No. 598 with the above-referenced modifications to the landscaping 41
using a Guadalupe Palm and with possible revision to the Yucca plants to a more pedestrian-42
friendly species and with consideration given to whether boulders as part of the landscape plan is 43
really necessary in terms of costs for materials and, related to the color palate, DRB recommends 44
approval as submitted but with the understanding that if the applicants are not totally happy they 45
can bring this back to planning staff/Planning Director for revision. Motion carried (5 -0). 46
47
6B. 517 Main Street (PEP) Preliminary Application (File No.: 646): Review and 48
recommendation on a Precise Development Plan to allow the construction of three two -49
story building clusters that will include a total of 42 low income senior housing units, 50
Community Center, and designated open space. 51
52
The Petaluma Ecumenical Properties (PEP) representatives introduced themselves. 53
54
Design Review Board January 8, 2015
Page 4
Mary Strompe, Director of Petaluma Ecumenical Properties (PEP): 1
Gave a history of PEP and its function as a non-profit affordable housing developer 2
organization that has been engaged/involved in other senior housing projects. 3
4
City Project & Grant Administrator Riley: 5
It is important to understand/remember there is a connectivity/association between the 6
PEP senior housing project and the proposed Grace Hudson Museum improvement 7
project and more specifically explained the connection. 8
9
Planning Director Stump: 10
The City currently owns the property proposed for the Precise Development Plan Project 11
located at 517 Main Street that PEP intends to purchase. 12
13
Bob Hayes, Project Architect introduced/presented the Project, referred to site plans sheet A1.0 14
and corresponding schematic drawings and gave a project description relative to the project 15
components and concepts for preliminary design review of the Sun House Senior Housing project 16
that is a work in progress: 17
Has been working with the Grace Hudson Museum proponents concerning the PEP 18
project. 19
The proposed project consists of three-two story building clusters that will include a total 20
of 42 low income senior housing units, a community center, and designate d open space. 21
Related to the concept site plan, building is two-story having a ‘double loaded corridor.’ 22
23
Member Hawkes: 24
Asked about the reason for having a double loaded corridor. 25
26
Member Morrow: 27
Asked about the use of the property adjacent to the Project on the west side. 28
29
Bob Hayes: 30
Buildings 31
A double loaded corridor means there is a unit on each side of the center corridor. There 32
are other ways of configuring multi-family/multi-unit projects but incorporating a double 33
loaded corridor is a cost efficient approach and also serves as a security measure for 34
seniors. Further explained the double loaded corridor concept and the location wher e the 35
corridors are connected with a balcony, where they are closed off, how access is 36
provided on either side of the corridor and/or basically how the double loaded corridor 37
works for the proposed Project. The cost savings by incorporating the double loaded 38
corridor concept can then be applied to the building architecture on the outside. 39
The intent of the building type/architecture was to design them to be efficient in so many 40
ways. 41
The site is ‘very tight’ to be able to accompany 42 units. The site plans are accurate even 42
though the Project is at a preliminary stage so what is being advocated is what could 43
actually happen. 44
Finds the concept of balconies to be a good thing for projects for a variety of reasons. 45
Related to the matter of parking, the intent was to conceal the concept of parking within 46
the buildings so as not to appear obvious. 47
Explained the function and location of the community center as shown on the conceptual 48
site plans and is located off/near the Museum park area. The community center is single-49
story and provides for kitchen, library, restroom facilities, and office space 50
accommodations. The community center is a nice place to gather and socialize and have 51
community/communal meals and enjoy different activities/special events. The community 52
center is also where mail is received for persons residing in the senior housing project so 53
this facility typically functions as a ‘hub.’ 54
Design Review Board January 8, 2015
Page 5
Building 1 consists of five units on the first floor and three units on the second story that 1
are accessed off a central area and demonstrated the location. 2
Confirmed ‘Professional Offices’ are located adjacent and to the west of the Project. 3
The Project has one elevator that can accommodate some of the units but not all and 4
explained the concept. The intent is to make as many of the units and/or at least 95% of 5
the units adaptable and the Project will exceed the accessibility code in this regard. 6
7
Street Edges of Project 8
Main Street edge: 9
o Explained that portion of the Project that touches Main Street and how it relates 10
to the Sun House and Museum. The architecture of the Sun House is one of the 11
most elegantly simple and well-proportioned structure having a nice porch on 12
one side and great detailing. 13
o Given the location in retrospect to the Sun House and Museum, finds that at the 14
Main Street section of the site is like developing a historical preservation project 15
and/or like adding to a historical structure. In this context, is of the opinion the 16
senior housing project needs to be sensitive to the museum historical structures 17
in the way of scale and proportion and architecture where the two-story element 18
of the Project is located behind the Main Street edge and more formally 19
explained the intent from an architectural/detail/materials standpoint. Some of 20
the materials proposed are hardi-board and board-and-bat because of durability 21
and compatibility with the Sun House/Museum. Finds it difficult to see a 22
distinction between wood and hardi-board and highly supports the use of hardi-23
board. 24
25
Cleveland Street edge: 26
o In addition to the Professional Office buildings adjacent to the Project, Buildings 27
2 and 3, the parking lot and some residential units are located along the 28
Cleveland Street edge. 29
o The site layout of the buildings/support utility buildings/entryways/other building 30
design amenities etc., resembles that of a PEP housing project completed in 31
Santa Rosa and explained the similarities as shown on the concept site plan. 32
o Addressed the trash/recycling area and corresponding building design for this 33
function and how this facility would help to screen cars from view in the parking 34
lot. It is likely the trash/recycling structure will likely be open-ended and have a 35
roof and look like the other buildings on the site. 36
37
Member Nicholson: 38
Asked if the local trash/recycling company has been advised of the Project and its 39
proposed functionality. 40
41
Bob Hayes: 42
Has not yet consulted with the local trash/recycling company to verify the proposed plan 43
is workable for the company in order to finalize the site plans. 44
45
Museum edge: 46
o Site plans concerning the Museum edge is not fully developed. 47
o Explained some of the design concepts such as gables and the like that will 48
architecturally fit well with the Museum. Noted there are a lot of trees in this area. 49
o Is of the opinion the scale and proportion of the buildings on the Museum edge 50
will work appropriately in keeping with the Museum. 51
52
Member Morrow: 53
Asked about the setback between the path and the Project buildings. 54
Design Review Board January 8, 2015
Page 6
Asked about trees that are not shown on the site plans and whether or not they are 1
located on the senior housing side of the path? 2
3
Member Hawkes: 4
Inquired if there is a fence along the path? 5
6
Member Liden: 7
Will the fence feature open spaces that people can walk through? 8
9
Bob Hayes: 10
The setback varies and referred to a site plan that addresses this matter. Advised the 11
setback is 22 feet at the beginning and explained the setback increases as the pathway 12
meanders along the Museum edge. 13
There will be a fence but it will be ‘transparent’ and/or a type that can be seen through 14
and may not be that tall. Aesthetically, the fence will be in keeping with what the 15
Museum improvement project is proposing to do. 16
The fence will have connection points that line up with the connection points of th e 17
Museum for pedestrian access that will not be locked so that seniors can access the 18
Museum and/or the Museum could potentially use the community building. Deferred 19
further discussion about the fence to landscape Architect Ann Baker. 20
Related to the trees not shown on the site plan, noted the trees are lightly shown. The 21
trees are existing and are not exactly on the PEP senior housing side of the property. The 22
intent is to plant more trees on the senior housing side. The trees are visible more from 23
the road for the driveway rather than from the path. 24
The park is fairly open and demonstrated the location of the cluster of trees. 25
The community center will serve much as a hub for activities and this aspect of the plans 26
has not yet been fully worked out. The building will be one story where the intent is to try 27
and keep the PEP buildings and/or overall project in scale/proportion/context with the 28
Museum in this area. 29
30
Ann Baker, Landscape Architect, PEP: 31
Related to the layout of the buildings, the intent was to develop the landscape character 32
in connection with the Grace Hudson Museum side of the Project and as such reuse 33
some of the landscape typologies/different types of plantings that are also proposed for 34
the Museum improvement project site. 35
Is of the opinion the Grace Hudson Museum property and PEP site are connected having 36
that ‘natural’ feel where the intent is to retain that feel with the landscaping that is being 37
developed/presented. 38
Related to the preliminary landscape plan (sheet L1.0), the colored-in trees are native. 39
The non-colored trees are generally not native. While the landscaping plan is in the 40
preliminary stage, the two existing Walnut trees near the street are proposed for 41
preservation. 42
Plan is to frame the entry to the parking lot with som e large Valley Oak trees since these 43
tree types dominate the site. 44
The selected parking lot tree species will come from the City-required parking lot tree list. 45
The parking lot is a very constrained area so it is important to have trees that perform 46
well in an urban setting. 47
Referred to the large blank wall on the office building side of the site where the plan is to 48
‘frame’ with Redwood trees. 49
Talked about the existing Redwood trees that are mostly on the Grace Hudson Museum 50
site where the plan is to plant additional Redwood trees in this area on the PEP site. 51
Referred to the Popular grove that will be retained. 52
The existing Live Oak trees will be preserved that are in parking lot and showed where 53
they will be extended. 54
Design Review Board January 8, 2015
Page 7
Finds it a nice effort to be able to walk down the community path that has different tree 1
communities. 2
Demonstrated the location of the Ash trees where there is a drain age ditch in the area. 3
This allows for another opportunity to enjoy a tree community along the pathway. 4
Talked about the pathway from the PEP site and where/how it connects to /interfaces with 5
the Museum entry. 6
A central corridor is proposed from Building 1 that will extend to the community path, 7
which acts as the general access from the PEP site to Main Street. Provided a more 8
general discussion about access on the PEP site and the primary pathway on the 9
Museum edge. 10
Having security fencing is important to seniors. Finds it desirable to install a split rail 11
fence and/or something similar to cable trellis fence proposed for other parts of the site 12
that prompts/promotes a rural and/or agricultural feel that is transparent. 13
14
Vice Chair Liden: 15
Requested clarification about any proposed fencing concerning the area between the 16
PEP site and the Museum. 17
18
Bob Hayes: 19
The Museum Board Members/Guild and staff also asked about the fencing and the 20
Museum director responded we do not want people from the Museum arbitrarily going 21
through the Museum site and would like to see a fence that is open. A fence is a security 22
thing for seniors. 23
24
Ann Baker: 25
Related to the fence and security concept, there has been transient use of the corridor 26
coming from the rail trail for many years so as the site plans develop, the element of 27
providing security will be more fully addressed with regard to fencing and lighting. 28
29
Member Thayer: 30
Is the path located on the Museum property? 31
32
Ann Baker: 33
The path actually meanders along the Museum and PEP properties so it exists on both of 34
these properties. The fence would actually be located on the PEP side of the path. The 35
path has different interpretative exhibits that are being developed for the Museum 36
improvement project and explained as an example, there would be places along the 37
pathway that tell stories about living in the Redwoods and/or show silhouettes of native 38
people/sculptures or interpretations about how to manage storm water in urban creeks so 39
there are different points of interest that follow the pathway. 40
Native grass is proposed for areas of the Museum and showed where this might be used 41
for the PEP project. 42
A storm water plan will be developed for the Project and demonstrated the location of the 43
rain water gardens for the Museum project. Further explained how the rain water gardens 44
are interconnected/integrated with on-site drainage swales/inlets/landscaping features 45
and City storm water system where the maintenance would likely be minimal. 46
Indicated the area designated as a dog run that is located near the community garden 47
area. 48
The PEP will feature native landscaping, ornamental fruit trees, and berry bushes 49
allowing for a landscaping mix to retain that native and agricultural landscaping feel. 50
51
Member Thayer: 52
Project has a nice balance of respecting the history of the larger site, noting orchards to 53
be a part of the Sun House history. 54
Design Review Board January 8, 2015
Page 8
Likes that the landscaping will correspond with what is existing in the area. 1
2
Member Hawkes: 3
Likes the Project. 4
Will the Project provide different levels of care /support for seniors other than 5
independent living? 6
7
Linda Hedstrom: 8
Confirmed the living situation is independent where the residents lease/rent the units. 9
Some supportive services are provided and gave examples. The Project does not 10
provide/offer transportation services and/or assisted living. 11
12
Member Morrow: 13
May have questions later on in the development/planning process. 14
15
Member Nicholson: 16
Impressed with the architectural planning and landscaping. 17
Likes the architectural planning related to lower single-story housing on the Cleveland 18
Lane and tapering it off to the street edge. 19
As noted in his comments related to the interpretative garden plan for the Museum 20
improvement project is alarmed that no one is concerned about the entryway to the 21
Museum that is being closed-in with fencing. The interpretative garden to the Museum is 22
not welcoming. The driveway is narrow having no signage and is of the opinion the 23
Museum culture is more about security than it is about creating a welcoming 24
state/condition to the community. Need to find a way to better announce the entrance to 25
the Museum and with opening this up more to the public. On the other hand is pleased 26
the PEP project is ‘mirrored’ to reflect the design/architecture of the Sun House Museum. 27
Does not support the installation of a fence between the Museu m and senior housing 28
properties and is of the opinion this presents an arbitrary message to the seniors and the 29
public. 30
31
Member Morrow: 32
Does not support the fence. 33
34
Member Hawkes: 35
A fence does not promote the connecting of beings. 36
37
Planning Director Stump: 38
The DRB will not formally review the signage and changes to the Museum entrance but 39
will be given plan updates showing what is being done. The Planning Commission will 40
likely review the Museum project in January. 41
42
Mary Stompe: 43
It may be that people do not understand the senior housing project is separate from the 44
Museum project. The intent of the fence is to provide some protection and living space for 45
the seniors so while the two projects are connected there is some separateness. 46
For other similar senior projects, PEP ended up putting in fences when none were 47
proposed initially. A fence serves as a sense of security to seniors even if it is 48
transparent/open. The fence will feature gates. 49
50
Ann Baker: 51
The concept of the fence is relevant because the path is close to people’s living space. 52
53
Member Nicholson: 54
Design Review Board January 8, 2015
Page 9
It appears the Museum is pursuing a fence to keep the public from entering the housing 1
development and asked if there is consideration to do something else other than to install 2
an eight-foot tall fence. 3
Provided the DRB with a copy of his recommendations concerning the Interpretative 4
Gardens/entrance regarding the proposed Museum Project that is incorporated into the 5
minutes as attachment 1. Sees the main issue with the Museum Project is that the whole 6
plan centers around the security issue and the need for fencing. Is of the opinion this is 7
not the most community-based approach to take and is concerned with urban boundary 8
and the aesthetics/presentation surrounding the area with fencing and walls. Shares this 9
same perception concerning fencing with the PEP project. 10
11
Mary Stompe: 12
The height of the fence would not be eight feet, but rather install a three to four-foot high 13
fence that would be open, such as a split rail fence that is open and transparent. 14
15
Vice Chair Liden: 16
The Project presentation was good and informative; Likes the architectural design and 17
plans for the senior housing project. 18
Has some concerns about the fence but understands the reason for having it. Asked if 19
landscaping would be an alternative solution to take care of the borders and/or barriers 20
that are necessary? Would be okay with a short split rail fence. 21
Is of the opinion the proposed project would enhance the Museum considerably along 22
with the other garden project located in the area. 23
24
Member Morrow: 25
Does the Project include plans for permeable surfacing in the parking lot? 26
Asked about the sidewalk widths? 27
28
Ann Baker: 29
The Museum has a split rail fence. 30
The intent is to provide for a lot of trees and grass as opposed to shrubbery/bus hes so as 31
to create a place where people feel comfortable walking, particularly at night. 32
Related to the application of including permeable surfacing, the civil engineer s are still 33
evaluating the concept. 34
Sidewalks would be complaint with City standards. 35
36
Member Thayer: 37
Asked about how the Museum Guild and Museum staff think about the senior housing 38
project? 39
Is of the opinion there is something about architecturally mimicking a historic structure in 40
that it takes away some of the energy of the Museum theme noting the importance of 41
preserving the uniqueness thereof. There may be too much mimicking of the Museum 42
design/architecture by the proposed PEP project. Finds the massing of the PEP housing 43
project proportioned well with the size and scale of the Sun House. 44
45
Bob Hayes: 46
Intends to finalize the Project plans soon. 47
The Museum Guild and Museum staff like the Project. 48
There is some potential for adjustment to the materials/some design features so as not to 49
draw too much from the ‘energy’ of the Museum theme. The PEP project can be better 50
distinguished from the Museum by incorporating more modern accents. 51
52
M/S Nicholson/Thayer the DRB unanimously is of the opinion the proposed PEP project is very 53
good, is well-considered from the massing to the detailing and from the open space to the built 54
Design Review Board January 8, 2015
Page 10
environment seem to work well and while not all of the DRB concerns are necessarily met, is 1
further of the opinion the design team for the PEP project has a good feel for balancing the 2
Museum and City wishes and the DRB concerns and therefore, approves and supports the 3
concept plans to date. (Motion carried 5-0). 4
5
7. MATTERS FROM THE BOARD: 6
7
8. MATTERS FROM STAFF: 8
9
9. SET NEXT MEETING 10
The next regular meeting will be Thursday, February 12, 2015. 11
12
10. ADJOURNMENT 13
The meeting adjourned at 4:47 p.m. 14
15
16
Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary 17
City of Ukiah, CA
Design Review Board
Design Review Board March 3, 2015
Page 1
1
MINUTES 2
3
Regular Meeting March 3, 2015 4
5
Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue 6
1. CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chair Liden called the Design Review Board meeting to order 7
at 3:00 p.m. in Conference Room #5. 8
9
2. ROLL CALL Present: Vice Chair Tom Liden, Alan Nicholson, 10
Howie Hawkes, Colin Morrow 11
12
Absent: Nick Thayer 13
14
Staff Present: Charley Stump, Planning Director 15
Michelle Johnson, Assistant Planner 16
Kevin Thompson, Principal Planner 17
Shannon Riley, Project & Grant Administrator 18
Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary 19
20
Others present: Bob Hayes 21
Ann Baker 22
Jim Langford 23
24
3. CORRESPONDENCE: 25
26
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes from the February 19, 2015 meeting are 27
included for review and approval. 28
29
M/S Morrow/Nicholson to approve the minutes from the February 19, 2015 meeting, as 30
submitted. Motion carried by an all AYE voice vote of the members present (3-0) with Member 31
Hawkes abstaining and Member Thayer absent. 32
33
5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS 34
35
The DRB is required by the City Code to review and make a recommendation on all Site 36
Development Permit applications. 37
38
6. NEW BUSINESS: 39
6A. 517 North Main Street, (PEP Housing) Sun House Senior Housing Project; General 40
Plan Amendment, Rezoning and New Precise Development Plan (File No.: 749): 41
Review and Recommendation on a Precise Development Plan to allow the construction 42
of three two-story building clusters that will include a total of 42 affordable senior housing 43
units, community center, and designated open space. 44
45
Assistant Planner Johnson: 46
Introduced new City of Ukiah Principal Planner, Kevin Thompson. 47
Member Thayer has submitted comments that are included in the minutes as attachment 48
1. 49
The DRB previously reviewed the conceptual design for the PEP Housing project in 50
January 2015. An official application has been received and staff requests the DRB make 51
Design Review Board March 3, 2015
Page 2
final comments relevant to the landscaping and architectural design/color palate and 1
materials for the Project. 2
The Project involves a General Plan Amendment to designate the site HDR (High Density 3
Residential) and a rezone to (PD) Planned Development, (R-3) High Density Residential 4
and a Precise Development Plan that is required to allow the construction of the three 5
two-story building clusters consisting of 42 units, community center, garden area, op en 6
space/park area, parking accommodations and pathways. 7
Project includes: 1) 42 housing units; 2) 31 parking spaces; 3) (3) two story building 8
clusters with architectural style consistent with the Sun House; 4) A Community Center; 9
5) building roofs that are oriented to the south to maximize solar output; 6) screened 10
parking lots; 7) garden area; 8) onsite open space/park area. 11
12
The site plan addresses the project description as provided for on architectural sheets (A1.0, 13
A1.1, A2.0, A2.1, A2.2, A2.3, A2.4, A3.0, A3.1 and A3.2) 14
15
Bob Hayes, Architect for PEP Senior Housing Project referred to the site plans as provided 16
for on attachment 3 of the staff report and presented the Project: 17
There have been very few architectural design changes since the DRB last looked at the 18
Project with regard to buildings 1, 2, & 3 and the Community Center. 19
The angle of the Community Center has changed somewhat and is a bit more diagonal. 20
Has been working with the Sun House Museum related to access between the two 21
facilities. 22
Explained in detail the location of the various facilities related to parking, open 23
space/courtyard area, the buildings, pathways, etc., and how they will interact/function for 24
the persons living in the complex. 25
The site and building orientation/configuration were designed with the architectural 26
integrity of the Museum theme in mind. 27
28
Ann Baker, Landscape Architect for PEP Senior Housing Project: 29
Very few changes have been made to the landscaping since the DRB reviewed the 30
conceptual plans. 31
Permeable paving will be implemented for the parking area to help address water runoff 32
and explained the other associated benefits thereof. Further addressed how 33
paving/pavers will work for the site. 34
Explained other changes made in and around the Community Center in connection with 35
the patio. 36
Explained the objective of the arbor and corresponding location where the intent is to 37
screen the parking lot and provide more privacy in the park space. 38
Explained the changes made to form related to one of the interior pathways on the site 39
and its relationship to the Community Center. 40
The raised beds have been modified and addressed what is being proposed related to 41
the landscaping features and noted one of the beds will be wheelchair accessible. 42
The form for the pathway connecting to the parking lot has changed. 43
Focus has been to ‘fill in’ the plant choices/plant palate as p rovided for in the reference 44
sheets, L-1.0 and L-1.1 of the Landscape Plan: 1) Two arbors are proposed and 45
explained the aesthetics thereof; 2) Talked about shade plantings in and around the 46
walking paths between the PEP Project and the Museum Project; 3) Related to fencing, 47
the intent is to install split-rail fencing along the community pathway an d demonstrated 48
the location such that the objective would be to ‘echo’ the Museum split-rail fence without 49
copying it. Explained fencing objectives related to the east side of the property that will 50
introduce the use of grape stakes on the back side of the property and explained how so 51
related to security purposes. 52
Related to one of the pathways as shown on the site plans, intent is to align the edging 53
with the pavers to provide some relation between the different components of the Project. 54
Design Review Board March 3, 2015
Page 3
Member Hawkes: 1
Will cars park on the pavers? Will the base be nicely compacted? 2
3
Ann Baker: 4
Confirm cars will park on the pavers. 5
Confirmed the paving has an engineered base that will contain a permeable class 2 base 6
as opposed to a Class 2 Caltrans base having the same structural rating, but more 7
durable quality. Explained how the permeable paving will work in connection with the 8
pavers. 9
The Project will feature stabilized aggregate pathways, one of which will have a ‘Flag 10
Stone’ border. The pathways are designed with safety in mind. 11
Related to the plant palate that will feature such species as Valley Oak, Trident Maples, 12
fruit trees, Redwood trees, Persimmons to name a few and showed the various locations 13
thereof. Also, identified the shrubs that will be featured on the site. 14
The parking lot will feature Trident Maples. Trident Maples do fine/tolerant in areas that 15
have higher groundwater. 16
Talked about the ‘micro-orchard’ and tree species. 17
Talked about how the landscaping that will help screen the site and provide shade. 18
Talked about the rain garden and the plant species that will be featured. 19
Explained the location of the native lawn that is proposed for the site. It can be mowed or 20
not and should not be cut too short. 21
22
Member Hawkes: 23
With the landscaping being extensive does PEP contract with a landscaping business to 24
manage/maintain the landscaping? 25
26
Vice Chair Liden: 27
Requested clarification the northern border will be shaded once the buildings are 28
constructed. 29
30
Jim Langford, PEP representative: 31
A professional landscaping business is hired to maintain the landscaping. A warranty 32
comes with the plant palate for a specified period of time where any plant that dies will be 33
replaced. 34
35
Ann Baker: 36
The plants around the storm water area also have a management plan as part of the 37
maintenance requirements for the Project. 38
Confirmed the northern portion of the property will be have shade once the buildings are 39
constructed. Added, this area will have a lot of shade such that the huckleberry and 40
coffeeberry plants and other like species will do well. 41
42
Bob Hayes addressed the design of the buildings: 43
Building 1 - Building is intended to incorporate/integrate design similarities from that of the Sun 44
House Museum so PEP has been working with the Museum to accomplish this goal. Using 45
design renderings explained: 46
Building roof would have pretty much the same slope the Sun House Museum has. 47
Incorporated some of the beam overhang design from that of the Museum and showed 48
the details on the site renderings. 49
Explained some of symmetrical feature design on the Sun House Museum that have 50
been incorporated into Building 1. 51
Utilized some of the same window styles. 52
While some of the design elements are being ‘picked up’ from the Sun House Museum 53
the intent is to do this in a different fashion and explained how so. The overall design for 54
Design Review Board March 3, 2015
Page 4
Building 1 looks like a barn to the Sun House as if it were acting like a subordinate 1
building to the Sun House in a historic sense. 2
The intent of the building configuration was to give that ‘quiet’ look/sense and explained 3
how the design features accomplish this objective. 4
Explained the entrance to Building 1 in connection with the courtyard/light -well area that 5
has a very linear quality to it and front and further explained how the tenants will enter the 6
units. 7
Explained that the ‘quiet’ roofs face the Museum property. 8
Likes the park side of the building from a design perspective. 9
The materials for this building include: 1) most part – board and batten; 2) CorTen steel 10
and demonstrated the location on the building where the intent is to provide architectural 11
enhancement to compliment the other materials to give the building that ‘barn’ look. 12
Described in detail how the materials work on the building to give that ‘barn look’ 13
character/appearance; 3) shingles. All buildings contain this intermix of the 14
aforementioned materials and/or some articulation/combination of the design thereof. 15
Sheet A2.0 shows first and second floor plan for Building 1. 16
Likes the appearance of Building 1, particularly with the linear design that is occurring. 17
The building looks like it belongs among Redwood trees. More Redwood trees will be 18
planted on the site. 19
The building has a nice ‘harmony’ to it, particularly with it being among the trees and 20
arbor. 21
22
Vice Chair Liden: 23
Asked if there was a color rendering showing the relation of Building 1 to the building that 24
exists to the south. 25
26
Bob Hayes: 27
Noted there is quite a bit of distance between Building 1 and the other buildings. 28
Addressed Building 1 and the elevation where the balconies are located and exp lained 29
the low sloping of the roof and other contour features and how they collectively work for 30
the design and compliment the Sun House Museum . Solar panels will likely be installed 31
on the low sloping roof as it has a nice orientation for this type of feature. The intent is to 32
install as many solar panels on the roof as possible. The goal is to have solar panels on 33
all the building roofs that will effectively conserve energy for the units. 34
35
Jim Langford: 36
Confirmed solar panels do assist with energy conservation and has resulted in cost 37
savings for other PEP housing projects. 38
39
Member Liden: 40
Asked about the scale of the CorTen steel. 41
42
Bob Hayes: 43
The aforementioned material will be corrugated and as far as related to scale the 44
material is all the same. 45
Is of the opinion the use of CorTen steel will be architecturally pleasing and an 46
interesting material to use. 47
Talked about the materials and materials palate, i.e., board batten/hardie board and 48
product type for the shingles. 49
50
Building 2 and 3 51
All the buildings are two stories except for the Community Center. 52
Showed location of the corridor. 53
Talked about the balconies and location thereof as shown on site plan renderings. 54
Design Review Board March 3, 2015
Page 5
Discussed access and showed the location of the elevator. 1
Talked about the elevation variations and how the symmetry design of the buildings, 2
corresponding features such as the gables/building trim, building materials/color scheme 3
and roof elevations/materials architecturally work well together. 4
These buildings will feature ‘Mansard roof’ styles. 5
Sheet A2.2 shows floor plans. 6
7
Principle Planner Thompson: 8
Will the buildings feature roof-mounted equipment? 9
10
Bob Hayes: 11
Confirmed there would be roof-mounted equipment, but not a lot because the mechanical 12
equipment will be inside the units. 13
Demonstrated the orientation/configuration of the buildings on the site and how they 14
interface with one another with a park in the middle so as to provide for an 15
effective/efficient/workable/comfortable living environment. 16
Talked about the color palates for the buildings and noted Buildings 2 and 3 will feature a 17
green, tan and brown palate and demonstrated how this works aesthetically. 18
From the site renderings showed the Mansard roofs and location of solar panels. 19
20
Community Center 21
Building 1 and the Community Center building are similar. 22
Is a ‘quiet’ and simple building. 23
Has a Hip roof in the middle of it with a hip entry. 24
All the project buildings have similar styling/detailing. 25
Showed on the color site/building renderings the elevation that faces the outdoor area 26
and the parking lot. Explained the entry and the use of the French doors that extend/go 27
out to the patio area. 28
There are windows on three sides of the community center with windows that face the 29
garden area and Museum. 30
Explained the design features and discussed where the shingles and board and batten 31
will be applied on the lower and upper portions of the building. 32
33
Cleveland Lane side of Buildings 2 and 3 (See sheet A1.1) 34
No significant change from the presentation of conceptual plan other than a little more 35
building detail. 36
Explained the application of the shingles, board and batten, color elements and how they 37
are used interchangeably to provide for a nice architectural appearance. Talked about 38
balcony design/contour and how this works with the arbors, etc. 39
Showed the location of the parking lots and parking behind the trash enclosures. 40
41
Cleveland Lane side of Building 1, Community Center (See sheet A1.1) 42
Showed location of Building 1 related to location of Building 2 and 3. 43
44
Grace Hudson Museum side (See sheet A1.1) 45
Showed location of Park, pathway, garden area. 46
47
Main Street side (See sheet A1.1) 48
Showed the orientation of Building 1 as it relates to Main Street. 49
50
Building Colors 51
Has established the color palates for the buildings, but will more fully work the color 52
palates to make certain they are just right/appropriate during construction. 53
Design Review Board March 3, 2015
Page 6
Showed the color palate variations for each of the buildings, where they will be applied on 1
the building in coordination with the CorTen. 2
Explained how the color for around the window base essentially drives the color scheme 3
for the buildings because the selection only has standard colors and are typically all dark 4
colors. 5
6
Vice Chair Liden: 7
Asked about the step-up grade between Building 1 and Building 2 and what will occur in 8
this regard. 9
Related to the front section of the site where the existing house is located asked about 10
the intent of grade differential. 11
Values the old Oak trees on the site and is hopeful the Valley Oak trees can be saved 12
west of the parking lot area. Surprised at how open the area is to the south in terms of 13
exposure to summer heat. Fortunately, the orientation of the buildings makes it so only 14
the end units would essentially be exposed. Also, observed the view shed to the south is 15
very unattractive especially from the second story units. It may be some type of 16
awning/vine growth should be a consideration. 17
The Project is really nice. 18
19
Member Hawkes: 20
Asked if the color for the roof shingles is the same for all buildings. 21
Referred to LACO report (attachment 1 of staff report) and questioned Table 1 data on 22
page 2 of the report, the number of bedroom units for the Project does not calculate 23
accurately based on the acreage for the site. The maximum number of bedroom units 24
should calculate to 42. The table indicates 44 bedroom units and asked for clarification in 25
this regard. 26
27
Member Morrow: 28
Asked about exterior lighting. 29
Related to the decrease in parking spaces observed seniors in this community use ‘Di al-30
a-Ride’ and asked if the Project can accommodate this type of vehicles on the site. 31
32
Bob Hayes: 33
The intent is to make the grade a gentle slope moving easterly for grading and drainage 34
reasons. Any sloping on the site will be ‘gentle slopes.’ 35
The front section will be evenly graded except in the area of the water retention pond. 36
Related to roof colors, to meet Green Building standards may do a cool roof on the flat 37
areas that is typically a light color. Preference would be to do a dark color rather than a 38
light color for the roofs. 39
Does not have light fixtures samples available, but noted the fixture type is ‘Craftsman’ 40
style. The lighting features are intended to be shielded and downcast. Talked about the 41
locations for the lighting fixtures and what fixture type will be used in the parking lot. 42
Referred to the site plans and explained how the small public transit vehicles can be 43
accommodated on the site and/or it may be possible to provide a pick-up area in front of 44
the buildings for quick in and out situations. 45
Related to the number of bedroom units allowed, confirmed 42 bedroom units allowed for 46
the Project. There should be 36 one bedroom units and 6 two bedroom units. For 47
Building 1, number of one bedroom units should be 8 as opposed to 10. 48
Acknowledged the end units facing southerly will be exposed to the hot sun. It may the 49
cool roof will provide some relief and/or provide for some other design mitigation 50
measures, such as an awning that would more appropriately shade these units. There 51
are only two units that would be affected and showed which ones. 52
53
54
Design Review Board March 3, 2015
Page 7
Vice Chair Liden requested Member Thayer’s comments be addressed. 1
2
Ann Baker: 3
Related to the Valley Oak trees, switched a Redwood tree to another Valley Oak tree that 4
will likely provide more shade than a Redwood tree. 5
The west side of the site will be shaded because the Valley Oak trees are tall. 6
Related to the Member Thayer’s comment, ‘can we use one of the smaller cultivar Ginkos 7
instead of the mess y Chitalpa for the eastern parking lot. Wish we never put that tree on 8
the approved tree list, messy, gets mildew even in our heat and look silly for 10 years 9
until it matures,’ noting her response, ‘the Chitalpa has done well in Calistoga and the 10
Gingkos have been impossibly slow. I guess site specific is everything. I’m worried the 11
trees will have wet feet in this site and recommends Trident Maples.’ The Trident Maples 12
will be planted close to the parking area on the west side as is possible and showed 13
location. Noted Member Thayer is fine with the Trident Maple suggestion. 14
15
DRB consensus: 16
Likes the Project very much and supports approval. 17
18
M/S Nicholson/Hawkes the DRB supports the proposed PEP Senior Housing Project, as 19
presented, has no particular Project issues; Project is well thought out and as the Project moves 20
forward in the approval process all ‘unknowns’ will become evident and adequately addressed . Is 21
hopeful the Planning Commission supports the PEP housing design team recommendations at 22
the Planning Commission’s stage of the Project process. (Motion carried 4-0). 23
24
7. MATTERS FROM THE BOARD: 25
26
8. MATTERS FROM STAFF: 27
Assistant Planner Johnson confirmed there will be DRB meeting on February 12, 2015. 28
29
9. SET NEXT MEETING 30
The next regular meeting will be Thursday, February 12, 2015. 31
32
10. ADJOURNMENT 33
The meeting adjourned at 3:48 p.m. 34
35
36
Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary 37