HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRBM_07092015 Final ��ty � u�iah City of Ukiah, CA
Design Review Board
1
2 MINUTES
3
4 Regular Meeting July 9, 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 Colin Morrow
12
13 Absent: Nick Thayer and Howie Hawkes
14
15 Staff Present: Charley Stump, Planning Director
16 Kevin Thompson, Principal Planner
17 Michelle Johnson, Assistant Planner
18 Shannon Riley, Project&Grant Administrator
19
20 Others present: Steve Honeycutt, Guillon Inc., Project Manager
21 Matt Gallaway, Project Architect
22
23
24 3. CORRESPONDENCE:
25
26 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes from the May 14, 2015 meeting are available
27 for review and approval.
28
29 M/S Nicholson/Morrow to approve May 14, 2015 minutes, as submitted. Motion carried (3-0) of
30 members present.
31
32 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
33
34 The DRB is required by the City Code to review and make a recommendation on all Site
35 Development Permit applications.
36
37 6. NEW BUSINESS:
38 6A. Gobbi Street Complex 680 South State Street, (File No.: 1111): Request for
39 Preliminary Review and Recommendation of a Major Use Permit & Site Development
40 Permit for a proposed 26 unit multi-unit residential development on the NE corner of W.
41 Gobbi Street and Oak Street. 680 S. State Street(APN 002-301-55).
42
43 Principal Planner Thompson:
44 • Project is multi-unit residential development consisting of 26 units (8-two bed units and
45 18-one bed units), 38 vehicle parking spaces, 4 bicycle parking spaces and landscaping.
46 • Property is zoned C-1 and is a permitted use that requires use permit approval.
47 • Applicant is seeking some project exceptions related to onsite parking and landscape
48 coverage.
49 • The project is located in Airport Compatibility Zone C and the Mendocino Airport Land
50 Use Commission (ALUC) will make a recommendation/determination whether or not the
51 project complies with the Airport Compatibility Zone C in terms of density.
Design Review Board July 9, 2015
Page 1
1 • Requests the DRB comment on the design aspects as it relates to site layout and
2 elevations.
3
4 Steve Honeycutt:
5 • Asked about the process for approval of the project and requested clarification the intent
6 of the today's DRB meeting is a preliminary look at the project.
7
8 Principal Planner Thompson:
9 • Confirmed the process and noted the DRB will first review the project from a preliminary
10 perspective and later review of a formal application with a recommendation to Planning
11 Commission for approval.
12
13 Matt Gallaway:
14 • Acknowledged there is a housing need in Ukiah, particularly rental units.
15 • Has previously meet with planning staff to generally discuss the project objectives where
16 some project concerns were raised related to compliance with City parking and
17 landscaping standards such that modifications were made to the site plans.
18 • Related to the issue of parking and compliance with City parking requirements the intent
19 is to utilize on-street parking along the South Oak Street side of the project. To take
20 advantage of on-street parking accommodations designed the front of the units on the S.
21 Oak Street side so they face the street.
22 • From a design perspective relevant to onsite drainage and compliance with the Low
23 Impact Development (LID) standards the City has adopted has provided for mitigation
24 measures to effectively address all storm water runoff on the site. With input from the
25 project landscape architect and project civil engineer is of the opinion runoff from the site
26 can be effectively mitigated with the installation of bio-swales. Drainage/geotechnical
27 studies will be conducted for the project such that the preliminary/conceptual approach
28 and end result will likely be to handle the runoff with bio-swales.
29 • The design of the units is `straight forward' where the intent was to design for comparable
30 market rate without `over-designing.'
31 • The project location is `prime' for residential use particularly with the opportunity for the
32 applicant to gain positive accreditation for designing/providing sustainable and/or LEED
33 certified housing-related components. The C-1 zoning district allows for multi-unit
34 residential development.
35 • The proposed project is proximate to so many service locations in town.
36 • Would like to use brick as a material treatment that would also architecturally
37 complement the design of existing the Rite Aid building.
38
39 Steve Honeycutt:
40 • Most project applicants wrestle with maintaining cost effectiveness and complying with
41 corresponding market rates.
42 • The intent is to maximize the number of residential units such that the project pencils out
43 financially and provides more housing opportunities for the community.
44 • If the proposed housing project works well the plan is to do more projects of this nature.
45 • While the intent is to provide for a nice design that fits well in the neighborhood must be
46 practical in terms of cost effectiveness when it comes to the selection of materials and
47 treatments. It is possible to provide for a nice project without `maximum financial effect.'
48
49 Chair Liden:
50 • Asked about the rental fees and how they will be determined.
51
52 Steve Honeycutt:
53 • Rental fees have not yet been determined and/or finalized. The applicant will have the
54 information when the DRB has a formal review of the proposed project.
Design Review Board July 9, 2015
Page 2
1 Member Nicholson:
2 • Is of the opinion the proposed project appears to be well-thought out and is an
3 appropriate project for the City and neighborhood.
4 • Related to the landscaping plan, likes the tree and plant selection. Asked about the
5 concept for the bio-swale and storm water retention plan for the project.
6 • Requested clarification that all of the drainage can be effectively addressed through the
7 use of bio-swales as opposed to having a manmade retention system.
8 • Is fine with the building orientation and the fit on the site; Finds the roof pitch `too normal'
9 compared to other recently approved projects, such as the PEP Senior Housing project
10 that incorporated craftsman architecture into the design. It is not to say the design should
11 have more arts and crafts to it but the roof pitch of 5 and 12 feet seems to be
12 uninteresting. Is of the opinion the roofline needs 'more character' such that it is
13 emphasized slightly in a more interesting way and in keeping with the anticipated budget.
14 • Is fine with the design of the fa�ade and asked about the window design/treatment and
15 would they be recessed?
16 • Preference is the darker color, higher contrast palate for the buildings.
17 • Design-wise, nice that the doors have character and are distinct having color variety
18 other than typical/ordinary color schemes.
19
20 Member Morrow:
21 • Requested clarification if the other doors that are different colors are patio doors? Are the
22 doors intended to be a mix of colors?
23 • Has consideration been given to the roof color? Asked if a darker roof would be a
24 consideration? A darker colored roof would emphasize the difference in the color
25 schemes for the buildings allowing for a nice presentation.
26 • Inquired about the color renderings shown in terms of color accuracy.
27 • Questioned the proposed four bicycle parking spaces for the whole complex and finds
28 this `anemic' since the residential project is in a central location that is close to services
29 and retail establishments where people can travel to and from by bicycle. Such bicycle
30 parking accommodations may be acceptable for a restaurant but not for a residential
31 facility where many more people may have bicycles. Would like to see more bicycle
32 parking for the complex.
33
34 Chair Liden:
35 • Likes concept of green doors.
36 • Concerned the color palates talked about may not be distinctive enough and could fade
37 overtime and become about the same color. Related to the color board samples, color
38 scheme should be distinctive and have contrast.
39 • Is of the opinion the storing of bicycles and/or other items on balconies is not visibly
40 attractive. Supports having personal storage area available. An alternative to a garage
41 would be to have small storage units for tenants to put items such as bicycles.
42
43 Matt Gallaway:
44 • In general, primary site indications are that the existing site is relatively flat. There is a
45 rather large drop-off from the sidewalk on the S. Oak Street side to the property and
46 explained the drainage plans for this area and use of bio-swales before discharge into
47 the City's storm drain system. Some permeable paving may be provided to assist with
48 drainage on the site. A final drainage plan will be provided.
49 • Confirmed drainage on the site will likely be through the use of bio-swales but other
50 methodologies/systems will be looked at in connection with the `priority IisY for
51 compliance with the City's adopted LID Technical Design Manual standard. Will likely be
52 okay without the mechanical component of diverting the rain water leaders using
53 downspouts and gutters but further review is necessary in this regard.
Design Review Board July 9, 2015
Page 3
1 • Is of the opinion there is not a significant increase that needs to be made to change the
2 pitch. The arts and crafts type of design typically has lower sloping rooflines.
3 Understands while presentation is important a composition roof limits how the roofline
4 can be contoured in terms of pitch. A pitch of 3 and 12 feet is as low as the roof can go
5 with a composition roof where the preference is to begin with a pitch as low as 5 and 12
6 feet.
7 • It is possible to change the pitch to create more of an interesting roofline pitch.
8
9 Steve Honeycutt:
10 • Is fine with adding character to the roofline provided the `A' look does conflict with the
11 increased height.
12 • Related to the `California gables' asked if the DRB is looking to increase their widths or
13 just increase the pitch of the roof?
14 • Preference is for the windows to include trim from an aesthetic perspective.
15 Acknowledged the proposed windows are plain.
16
17 Matt Gallaway:
18 • Both the pitch of the roof and widths of the California gables would be increased thus
19 increasing the visibility.
20 • Talked about the two-tone color palate. Would like the body of the building to be a darker
21 color and the trim a lighter color. Referred to item `E' on the color board and
22 recommended incorporating a trim element around the brick. The color scheme and
23 application thereof, trim, use of brick and window treatment and/or other design
24 articulations should make the building 'pop' and have more character.
25 • Explained how the color palate would be applied to give contrast.
26 • Likes a green color for the doors as an accent color. Right now as presented the doors
27 are `portabella brown.'
28 • Confirmed the main entry doors are downstairs and are of different colors.
29 • The applicant is not particularly supportive of the green color for the doors.
30 • Preference would be a mix of colors for the doors. The site drawings show two different
31 door colors.
32 • To preserve and enrich color tone for the buildings intent is to use acrylic and/or latex
33 topcoat on the plaster.
34 • Explained the third color palate sample was actually the original proposed and ended up
35 more `peachy' than anticipated and this is not the color palate desired.
36 • Looked at roof colors and also thought about the idea of changing the color scheme from
37 roof to roof and/or from unit to unit. Having the roof the same color would allow for a more
38 integrated/unifying appearance. Preference is the charcoal color for the roof.
39 • Related to the various color palates being discussed, the preference is to use a two-tone
40 color scheme for the base color with a darker roof color. The color renderings do not
41 produce a true color palate.
42 • Related to bicycle parking/storage, applicant looked at common and storage areas and
43 the discussion was that if some balconies were provided and/or lower level patios this
44 might allow people to feel more comfortable storing a bicycle or barbecue. It is likely
45 bicycles would be stored inside the residential unit. Has no problem adding a few more
46 bicycle parking spaces.
47 • Related to the topic of storage areas such as in garages and noted there is not sufficient
48 width on the site to provide for a `park under approach' for a garage and still be able to
49 maintain the number of units necessary for the project to pencil out financially. The `park
50 under approach' for a garage is a consideration for other sites the applicant is looking at
51 in Ukiah.
52
53 Steve Honeycutt:
Design Review Board July 9, 2015
Page 4
1 • Some of the other potential residential sites being looked at in Ukiah are not as walkable
2 and/or as well-located as the proposed project site. Would hope that bicycles would be
3 stored inside the units.
4 • Consideration is being given to providing for adequate screening and tree placement.
5 Acknowledged providing for sufficient landscaping is very important and will be
6 addressed in the final landscape plans.
7 • Related to the issue of street trees, noted the project will eliminate two street trees and
8 showed the location where replacement alternative(s) species could be planted.
9
10 There was applicant/DRB discussion about the locations for street trees and/or replacement
11 locations and appropriate tree species as shown on the site plans.
12
13 Chair Liden:
14 • Referred to pages 5 and 6 of the staff report, Site Development Permit findings and
15 asked if the DRB had any comments.
16
17 There was DRB discussion concerning lighting accommodations on the site, such as wall
18 sconces
19
20 Matt Gallaway:
21 • The matter of lighting has not been fully worked out. Preference would be to install
22 lighting that does not have a lot of presence and prefers lighting systems show the effect
23 of lighting without seeing the visual source of the light. Once a wall sconce is installed, it
24 establishes the `vernacular of the architecture.' Preference is down-lit soffit lighting. Will
25 need to decide on some type of parking lot light fixture/system
26 • There are developments credits available for the installation of solar and there has been
27 discussion about implementing a solar structure along the north side of the site and with
28 the type of site design and building orientation this can occur.
29
30 Shannon Riley:
31 • The City of Ukiah Public Utilities Director may be able to assist with questions about solar
32 systems and credits earned for installation.
33
34 Member Morrow:
35 • Asked about the reason why one roof is higher.
36
37 Matt Gallaway:
38 • The roof is higher because the unit is larger such that the roof is wider.
39
40 Shannon Riley:
41 • Related to bicycle parking and corresponding accommodations it is her experience as a
42 business owner in the downtown that even though a sizeable bike rack may be installed
43 for convenience purposes people tend to park closest to their visibility citing an example.
44 Recommends the project provide for adequate space to park a bicycle such as the patio
45 area.
46
47 Matt Gallaway:
48 • It may be beneficial to distribute space throughout the site where it may be convenient for
49 people to park their bicycles.
50
51 Steve Honeycutt:
52 • It may be that once drainage for the site has been studied and worked out this could
53 affecUchange the landscaping plans.
54
Design Review Board July 9, 2015
Page 5
1 DRB consensus:
2 • Related to color palate, preference is higher contrast having a second accent color that
3 does not necessarily have to be the green palate that was discussed above.
4 • Proposed roof pitch is not a good fit and recommends the architect change the pitch to be
5 more architecturally pleasing.
6 • Add more bicycle parking.
7 • Possibly look at potential storage areas and/or allow for space on the site where people
8 can park their bicycles.
9 • Is okay with the proposed lighting concept and allow applicant to exercise discretion in
10 this regard.
11 • Add another street tree to the north side of the site near the entry driveway on Oak
12 Street.
13 • Preference is darker roof color.
14 • Recommends the project move forward in the approval process.
15
16 Principal Planner Thompson:
17 • The DRB will have the opportunity to review the formal application and site plans.
18
19 7. MATTERS FROM THE BOARD:
20
21 8. MATTERS FROM STAFF:
22
23 9. SET NEXT MEETING
24 The next regular meeting will be Thursday, August 13, 2015.
25
26 10. ADJOURNMENT
27 The meeting adjourned at 3:56 p.m.
28
29
30 Cathy Elawadly, Transcriptionist
31
32
33
34
35
36
Design Review Board July 9, 2015
Page 6