HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRBM_05142015 Final ��ty � u�iah City of Ukiah, CA
Design Review Board
1
2 MINUTES
3
4 Regular Meeting May 14, 2015
5
6 Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue
7 1. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Liden called the Design Review Board meeting to order at
8 3:00 p.m. in Conference Room #3.
9
10 2. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Tom Liden, Alan Nicholson,
11 Howie Hawkes, Colin Morrow
12
13 Absent: Nick Thayer
14
15 Staff Present: Charley Stump, Planning Director
16 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
17
18 Others present: Dan Thomas
19 Joe Thomas
20
21 3. CORRESPONDENCE:
22
23 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes from the March 26, 2015 and April 9, 2015
24 meetings are available for review and approval.
25
26 M/S Hawkes/Nicholson to approve March 26, 2015 and April 9, 2015 minutes, as submitted.
27 Motion carried (4-0).
28
29 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
30
31 The DRB is required by the City Code to review and make a recommendation on all Site
32 Development Permit applications.
33
34 6. NEW BUSINESS:
35 6A. Chipotle's Mexican Grill Restaurant 596 East Perkins Street, (File No.: 842): Review
36 and recommendation to Planning Commission on a Site Development Permit for
37 construction of a 2,000 square foot Chipotle Mexican Grill restaurant on the vacant parcel
38 located in the Downtown Zoning District at the northwest corner of East Perkins Street
39 and Orchard Avenue. On-site parking and landscaping are also proposed, as is outdoor
40 dining along both street frontages at 596 East Perkins Street, APN 002-200-38.
41
42 Planning Director Stump:
43 • Staff is requesting the DRB conduct a formal review and make recommendations on a
44 Site Development Permit application to the Planning Commission.
45 • The DRB provided the following recommendations at the March 26, 2015 DRB
46 preliminary meeting such that the applicant has revised the plans and submitted a formal
47 application:
48 1. Provide for good pedestrian connection to west parking lot;
49 2. East/west sidewalk be separate from the driveways such that the main entry is on the
50 corner and continue the west sidewalk to the public sidewalk;
51 3. Encourage creative solution to finding appropriate trees for shading purposes;
52 4. Use darker color palate on building;
Design Review Board May 13, 2015
Page 1
1 5. Project architect explore pulling part of the building out which would be a nice
2 amenity for users that would still allow for sufficient light into the building. Structure
3 does not have to be a solid roof but rather 'expressed' on the edges as a solid
4 roof/architectural form where the element could be shaded for solar orientation and
5 still provide shelter for people using the outdoor dining area;
6 6. No turf, use aggregate of some kind or some other non-water using element;
7 7. Consider some permeable paving instead of concrete/asphalt;
8 8. Creative tree selection; Preference is to see more street trees planted in connection
9 with Perkins Street streetscape improvement project possibly in the planter area in
10 front of Pear Tree shopping center;
11 9. Ask applicant to consider installation of art display area that could be indoors or
12 outdoors.
13 • Staff is requesting the DRB review the aforementioned recommendations, look at the site
14 plans and provide further comments if there are any.
15
16 Chair Liden:
17 • Asked whether the DRB is being asked to include a recommendation concerning the
18 requested exceptions and/or whether this matter would be addressed by the Planning
19 Department: 1) One-story rather than the mandatory two-stories; 2) Project proposed
20 more than the maximum allowed parking; 3) Proposed build is not parallel to the principal
21 frontage line for 70% of its length.
22
23 Planning Director Stump:
24 • Confirmed the Planning Department/Planning Commission will address the requested
25 project exceptions.
26
27 DRB discussed the project recommendations made at the preliminary meeting:
28
29 Recommendation # 1
30 Provide for qood pedestrian connection to west parkinq lot
31
32 Chair Liden:
33 ■ Site plans indicate the appropriate pedestrian connection has been made.
34
35 Dan Thomas, Applicant:
36 ■ Noted a change has recently been made to the plans as it relates to the Perkins Street
37 frontage.
38
39 Planning Director Stump:
40 ■ Public Works became concerned about the Perkins Street frontage on this property
41 because there are plans to widen Perkins Street and we do not want to require the
42 applicant make improvements only to have them removed. The intent is too effectively
43 coordinate the timing for both projects. It may be not all the frontage improvements are
44 required right away such that the curb cut issue can be adequately addressed/worked
45 out. It is likely the Perkins Street improvement project will follow completion of the
46 Chipotle project. The plan is to widen Perkins Street 10 feet on the north side of the
47 street.
48
49 There was discussion concerning the two existing `cutouts' roughly in the same location and
50 possibly eliminating them and replace with a new one.
51
52 Chair Liden:
53 ■ The plan update would affect the proposed project because the Perkins Street frontage
54 area is where the landscaping/street trees would be located. If the sidewalk is being
Design Review Board May 13, 2015
Page 2
1 pushed back to accompany the street being widened, the shade trees located to the
2 south would be lost.
3 ■ With no shade trees planned for the frontage area, shade for the project would be the
4 awnings over the outdoor tables.
5 ■ Asked if it was known Perkins Street is to be widened why not underground the utilities at
6 the same time?
7
8 Member Morrow:
9 ■ His understanding no trees are to be planted in that part of the street frontage area that is
10 in the right-of-way because of the City anticipated improvements planned for Perkins
11 Street.
12
13 Dan Thomas:
14 ■ Has concern the street will come too close to the building.
15
16 Planning Director Stump:
17 ■ The awning (metal canopy) has been extended/projected outward some from the building
18 for shade purposes.
19 ■ Is not concerned the street may come too close to the building, but rather the traffic
20 signal and accompanying traffic signal activator that is a separate pole being pushed up
21 into the corner entrance to the restaurant. These two items would have to be placed
22 somewhere back from the entrance. This would essentially be a design issue and Public
23 Works is aware of this.
24 ■ Public Works is of the opinion the building will not likely have to be pushed back from the
25 street and there would be a sidewalk between the street and patio area. The intent of the
26 DZC is not for patio areas to be setback for projects, but rather as close to the sidewalk
27 as possible.
28 ■ The intent is to effectively coordinate the undergrounding of Perkins Street with the
29 widening of the street.
30
31 DRB consensus:
32 ■ Fine with recommendation #1.
33
34 Recommendation #2
35 East/west sidewalk be separate from the drivewavs such that the main entrv is on the corner and
36 continue the west sidewalk to the public sidewalk
37
38 Member Nicholson:
39 ■ With the improvements to Perkins Street and corresponding new streetscape will the
40 sidewalk on Perkins Street leading to the pedestrian entry be kept?
41
42 Planning Director Stump:
43 • Confirmed the pedestrian entry will be maintained separately from the driveways, as
44 discussed by the DRB at the preliminary project meeting.
45
46 DRB consensus:
47 ■ Fine with recommendation #2.
48
49 Recommendation #3
50 Encouraqe creative solution to findinq appropriate trees for shadinq purposes
51
52 Dan Thomas:
53 ■ Will plant any tree species the DRB recommends.
54 ■ Noted the existing Redwood trees located to the west of the property line will provide
55 shade particularly in the afternoon.
Design Review Board May 13, 2015
Page 3
1 Member Nicholson:
2 ■ Asked about how extensive the landscape plan should be and how much does the DRB
3 need to address this project component?
4
5 Planning Director Stump:
6 ■ The trees proposed are from the City's Master Tree list.
7 • A final landscape plan is necessary for approval of a Site Development Permit. There is
8 a landscape concept in place that includes native vegetation and trees from the City's
9 Master Tree List so is of the opinion the DRB does not need to review this aspect of the
10 project extensively at this point.
11
12 DRB consensus:
13 ■ Fine with recommendation #3.
14
15 Recommendation #4
16 Use darker color palate on buildinq
17
18 Planning Director Stump:
19 ■ Previously the color scheme was one color(dark brown) but has been changed to include
20 more of a two-tone color scheme as shown on page 12 of the site plans.
21
22 DRB consensus:
23 ■ Encourage the use of a darker color scheme for the building.
24
25 Recommendation #5
26 Proiect architect explore pullinq part of the buildinq out which would be a nice amenitv for users
27 that would still allow for sufficient light into the buildinq. Structure does not have to be a solid roof
28 but rather `expressed' on the edges as a solid roof/architectural form where the element could be
29 shaded for solar orientation and still provide shelter for people using the outdoor dinina area
30
31 Member Nicholson:
32 ■ Noted the site plans indicate the canopy was only extended west and is fine with this
33 design concept. The extended canopy will provide more shade/shelter from weather
34 conditions in the outdoor dining area.
35
36 DRB consensus:
37 ■ Fine with the extended canopy design.
38
39 Recommendation #6
40 No turf, use aqqreqate of some kind or some other non-water use element
41
42 DRB sees no turf is proposed.
43
44 DRB consensus:
45 ■ Likes that no turf will be used.
46
47 Recommendation #7
48 Consider some permeable pavinq instead of concrete/asphalt
49
50 Member Nicholson:
51 ■ Page 1 of the site plans does indicate permeable paving is being proposed and
52 demonstrates the locations.
53
54 Planning Director Stump:
Design Review Board May 13, 2015
Page 4
1 ■ Public Works does not support permeable paving on sidewalks, but rather concrete for
2 durability purposes.
3
4 Chair Liden:
5 ■ Permeable paving is shown in the parking lot.
6
7 Joe Thomas:
8 ■ The construction persons for the project are of the opinion permeable paving `is a bad
9 idea' and explained from a technical aspect why.
10
11 Dan Thomas:
12 ■ The project is required to comply with the City's adopted LID Technical Design Manual
13 standards concerning drainage and runoff for the site where LID engineering
14 consultants/experts are working on this aspect of the project.
15
16 DRB understands the project is subject to LID Manual review.
17
18 DRB consensus:
19 ■ Would like to see some permeable paving, if feasible but understands this depends on
20 the LID report.
21
22 Recommendation #8
23 Creative tree selection; Preference is to see more street trees planted in connection with Perkins
24 Street streetscape improvement proiect possibly in the planter area in front of Pear Tree shoppinq
25 center
26
27 DRB understands there may not be sufficient room for trees in the frontage area if Perkins Street
28 is widened. Would not want to recommend trees be planted only to be removed if the frontage
29 improvements.
30
31 Chair Liden:
32 ■ Cannot recommend trees be planted unless the building is moved back.
33
34 Member Nicholson:
35 ■ Would not support moving the building back because parking space is needed.
36
37 Planning Director Stump:
38 ■ Is of the opinion if there is any room left over for trees on the Perkins Street side once the
39 street is widen would want a tree planted there.
40
41 Member Nicholson:
42 ■ Asked if there was a way to condition the project such that a tree(s) be added if there is
43 sufficient space once the Perkins Street improvement project is complete.
44
45 Planning Director Stump:
46 ■ DRB could recommend a tree be planted to the Planning Commission should there be
47 room once the Perkins Street improvement project is complete.
48
49 DRB consensus:
50 ■ Encourage the planting of a tree(s) in the frontage area if there is sufficient space to do
51 so after Perkins Street is widened.
52
53 Recommendation #10
54 Ask applicant to consider installation of art displav area that could be indoors or outdoors
55 Member Nicholson:
Design Review Board May 13, 2015
Page 5
1 ■ Sees no reference to this in the site plans.
2 ■ Would like to keep Recommendation#10 as a recommendation to Planning Commission.
3
4 Chair Liden:
5 ■ Does not consider Recommendation #10 to be particularly an issue.
6
7 DRB consensus:
8 ■ Would like Recommendation #10 to remain as a recommendation to Planning
9 Commission.
10
11 Landscapinq
12
13 Member Nicholson:
14 ■ In addition to the Red Maple and London Plane trees as shown on the site plan would
15 like to see one other significant tree planted closer to the building. Sees there is a good
16 planter area behind the proposed building.
17 ■ Related to the west side of the project and Pear Tree Center, has concern with regard to
18 the pedestrian thoroughfare and the no parking island where proposed that this will cut
19 into the Redwood tree roots and needs to be moved down and/or moved to the north
20 about 10 feet and demonstrated the location on page 1 of the site plans. Showed on the
21 site plan the location where it may be necessary to remove one parking space to sustain
22 the tree root system.
23
24 Dan Thomas:
25 • Finds it difficult to address landscaping specifics until the drainage plan/LID Manual
26 review and Perkins Street improvement project are addressed and/or more defined. Does
27 not know about the feasibility of implementing a bio-swale system until the issue of
28 drainage/runoff is evaluated/analyzed for the project.
29 ■ Acknowledged the importance of taking care of the trees for pedestrian safety purposes
30 and for the protection of the root system.
31
32 DRB recommended consideration be given to modifying the pedestrian connection to Pear Tree
33 Center and corresponding parking strip so the pedestrian thoroughfare would avoid tree roots and
34 damage thereof. In other words do whatever it takes to protect the tree roots which might mean
35 modifying the pedestrian thoroughfare and/or parking strip.
36
37 Dan Thomas:
38 ■ Asked about the City parking regulations for parking lots of having a planter area
39 requiring one tree for every four parking spaces.
40
41 Member Morrow:
42 ■ A deviation presently exists with regard to the aforementioned parking requirements.
43
44 Planning Director Stump:
45 ■ Does not see compliance with the parking lot requirements as a problem. Planning
46 Commission will be informed that `something creative is trying to be achieved' with the
47 proposed project and site constraints.
48
49 DRB discussion about the design of the outdoor dining area and possible use of pavers and/or
50 other materials such as granite that would be ADA assessable.
51
52 M/S Nicholson/Hawkes that the DRB recommends Planning Commission approval of a Site
53 Development Permit for Chipotle's Mexican Restaurant to include the recommendations made by
54 the DRB at the Preliminary meeting as discussed above with specific mention the project should
55 provide good pedestrian connection to the west parking lot such that the necessary parking lot
Design Review Board May 13, 2015
Page 6
1 curb cuts and pedestrian thoroughfare are built to avoid damaging tree roots to the existing
2 Redwood trees, provide for permeable paving if feasible assuming the LID report does not
3 change this opportunity, provide for one more significant tree be planted in the northwest planter
4 area if there is no conflicts with drainage and LID requirements with the City and provide more
5 street trees in the frontage area south of the building after the Perkins Street
6 realignmenUimprovement project is completed, if possible. Motion carried 4-0.
7
8 7. MATTERS FROM THE BOARD:
9
10 8. MATTERS FROM STAFF:
11
12 9. SET NEXT MEETING
13 The next regular meeting will be Thursday, June 11, 2015.
14
15 10. ADJOURNMENT
16 The meeting adjourned at 3:56 p.m.
17
18
19 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
Design Review Board May 13, 2015
Page 7