HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRBM_09242015 - Final ��ty � u�iah City of Ukiah, CA
Design Review Board
1
2 MINUTES
3
4 Regular Meeting September 24, 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 Liden, Howie Hawkes, Alan Nicholson,
11 Colin Morrow
12
13 Absent: Nick Thayer
14
15 Staff Present: Kevin Thompson, Principal Planner
16 Michelle Johnson, Assistant Planner
17
18 Others present: Jerry Martyn
19
20 3. CORRESPONDENCE:
21
22 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes from the September 17 meeting will be
23 available for review and approval at the October 8, 2015 meeting.
24
25 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
26
27 The DRB is required by the City Code to review and make a recommendation on all Site
28 Development Permit applications.
29
30 6. NEW BUSINESS:
31 6A. Request for Major Site Development Permit for the renovation of the existing Redwood
32 Tree Carwash at 859 North State Street, APN 002-091-17,
33 File No.: Munis 1257-SDP-PC.
34
35 Principal Planner Thompson:
36 • Gave a project description as provided for on page 1 of the staff report where the intent is
37 to renovate/upgrade the existing 1,152 square foot carwash to a more automated
38 operation that would include site improvements to include landscaping and equipment.
39
40 Member Thayer submitted project comments that are incorporated into the minutes as
41 attachment 1.
42
43 Ed Blair, Tunnel Vision dba Blair Engineering:
44 • Attachment 1 of the staff report provides for a comprehensive detail of the project with
45 regard to project description, technical aspects, building elevations/architectural details,
46 signage, and site layout.
47 • Referred to attachment 2 of the staff report that addresses the project description and
48 request for additional information from City Planning staff and noted the scope of the
49 project is to remodel the existing vehicle wash detail bay and upgrade into an automated
50 conveyor wash bay using state of the art construction and wash equipment technologies.
Design Review Board September 24, 2015
Page 1
1 • Currently the carwash is located in a building that is self-operating. The intent is to
2 improve the wash site by moving the hand wash out of the self-serve wash bay and
3 corresponding property to the adjoining site and provide for more of a mechanical
4 operation. Currently there are five wash bays on the site. The proposal is to remove one
5 wash bay. Three remaining hand wash bays will remain.
6
7 Chair Liden:
8 • Will the existing southern stalls remain or will they be disassembled?
9 • Requested clarification the existing hand wash bay will become like the other two bays
10 next to it?
11 • Will employees presently doing the hand washing of cars now be doing the detailing?
12 • Does every car get detailed or is this process added on by individual choice?
13 • Asked about the exterior materials on the bay building?
14 • Related to security, will the carwash close its doors at night?
15
16 Member Hawkes:
17 • How will the stacking of cars occur on the site waiting to be washed?
18 • Asked about circulation on the site with regard to the carwash and how this works.
19
20 Member Morrow:
21 • Will customers be driving their own cars through the carwash?
22 • Requested clarification the southern 2/3 of the existing wash bar area would remain in
23 use?
24 • Are there plans to renovate the existing structure on the site with the new?
25 • Will there be lighting on the structure?
26
27 Member Nicholson:
28 • Asked for clarification regarding the renovation with regard to site and building
29 layout/orientation.
30 • The Ukiah Planning Commission has been working to `unify' State Street. It was fairly
31 controversial when Taco Bell and Colonial Sanders were developed on N. State Street.
32 The design of the proposed renovated carwash does not architecturally fit with the other
33 buildings associated with the Redwood Tree gas station facilities. Is of the opinion this is
34 the opportunity to `unify' the design/architecture of the associated Redwood Tree gas
35 station buildings whether it be color coordination, textures, overhangs, etc. The design
36 concept is a `box' structure. Architecturally speaking, the design is confusing. It may be
37 all associated buildings be painted the same color to provide for aesthetic continuity.
38
39 Ed Blair:
40 • Initially the intent for the Redwood Tree Car Wash was to have three self-serve carwash
41 bays, but ended up using one bay as a hand carwash. What is being proposed is to
42 migrate from the three-bay carwash and utilize an existing two-wash bay in the rear of the
43 property and eliminate one bay. At present, there are five wash bays on the site. What is
44 being proposed is the removal of 540 sq. ft. from the north wash bay and equipment
45 room and saving/reusing the existing 540 sq. ft. south bay structure and increase the bay
46 by 360 sq. ft.
47 • Confirmed the existing hand wash bay would become operational like the two bays next
48 to it where the equipment/apparatus inside will be eliminated/abandoned.
49 • Stacking is referred to as `cars waiting' for the wash process where the design intent is to
50 mitigate certain stacking parameters. The carwash, as proposed, is located outside the
51 purview of the City's Commercial Development Design Guidelines. Stacking begins at the
52 point of the wash process and extends to the street where the question is how many cars
53 can be standing in reserve? To define/clarify, the cars that have gone behind pay post
54 after the transaction are in queue such that the computer has that particular wash in its
Design Review Board September 24, 2015
Page 2
1 memory. The cars that are waiting from the street to the pay point are really `the
2 stacking.' Related to stacking is of the opinion there is sufficient room for the stacking of
3 eight cars. The project description regarding reconstruction of the carwash operation
4 involves the addition of the wash lane entrance with stacking space for seven cars.
5 • Explained how circulation works on the site with regard to the carwash operation and
6 stacking. What will occur is a car would enter the driveway and go through the wash
7 process out to the detail operation and then out to the street. The detail area will remain
8 the same as it presently operates.
9 • What currently occurs with regard to the dynamics of the crew pit is that there are
10 approximately three employees that receive cash payment and prep cars to go through
11 the wash process, where two of these three people will migrate to the detail side of the
12 operation. There still has to be an employee that monitors/manages the entrance of the
13 conveyor.
14 • The matter of detailing is essentially a marketing tool. The configuration of how car
15 washing blends with detailing is called an `express wash' where a car goes through the
16 carwash process and leaves. The carwash and detail operations are compatible with one
17 another and blend together.
18 • Confirmed customers will drive their own cars through the carwash. Customers are
19 encouraged to stay in the car. It used to be customers got out of their cars and it was
20 determined this causes problems, including an increase in stacking. Presently there is
21 much better/more efficient equipment for carwash operations so customers are
22 encouraged to stay in their cars through the process. Carwash operations have come into
23 a new era of capability with regard to equipment and washing materials. It is a whole new
24 and positive experience for customers.
25 • Related to the proposed renovation and building layout, the proposed plan is to remove
26 the north wash bay and equipment room and use the existing south wash bay structure
27 as the primary entrance and add 20 feet to the back side of the structure.
28 • Referred to the site plans related to the self-serve wash bay and noted this would return
29 to its original form of three total self-serve wash bays. There are currently three wash
30 bays and explained how the carwash and detail operations are occurring. The proposed
31 renovation will blend the two operations into a more cohesive/efficient process and again
32 explained what is occurring with the north and south bays.
33 • Confirmed the business owner has no plans at this time to renovate existing structures on
34 the site to match new. There are no changes to any other buildings on the site.
35 • The bay building will be a Basalite stone wall material, which is an adaptive product
36 particularly for a carwash structure as it pertains to moisture content/issues.
37 • Confirmed there will be lighting on the structure, primarily for security purposes. The
38 carwash will not operate 24 hours.
39 • The business owners/operators will make the decision whether or not to have doors.
40 Doors on carwash establishments are used, but not always. Ukiah has many carwash
41 establishments that do not have doors.
42 • Related to the proposed design, all that is being done is re-siding the existing building
43 where the intent is to architecturally tie the buildings together. For example, under the
44 pretense of a remodel the intent was to break up the surface to include the redwood
45 trellis which is consistent with the Redwood Tree gas station theme. The carwash is
46 approximately 150 feet from the back of the sidewalk so the building is set back far
47 enough not to stand out visually. Also, there is really no other view of the building from
48 any other angle. The existing trees will be retained/maintained along the south property
49 line and is of the opinion this is a great `living wall.' While it may be challenging to add
50 solar power later since the trees are big this is a concept the applicant would like to
51 consider where a determination will be made in this regard once the building is in place.
52 The intent of the design concept is for the customer to have a great experience and that
53 their needs are sufficiently met.
54
Design Review Board September 24, 2015
Page 3
1 Discussion of comments submitted by Member Thayer where specific modifications were made to
2 the landscape plan:
3 • Applicant's planting plan does not reflect a knowledge of mature plant sizes,
4 plant nomenclature or thorough suitability to our climate.
5 ■ Specifically: "Lagerstomia" and "Pisacia" should read Lagerstroemia and
6 Pistachia.
7 • The Chinese Pistache is a fine tree, there are just too many in the small space at
8 the back of the property. Suggest two trees for this space. And place two trees
9 at the entry to the car wash. The Crape Myrtles are not effective shade trees for
10 the large amount of paving on the project.
11 ■ The Miscanthus transmorrisonensis is overplanted for the mature size of this
12 grass.
13 ■ The Boston ivy is vastly overplanted for the scale of the structure. One vine can
14 be as much as 50' x 50'. The plan shows 5 in a 10' (?) stretch.
15 ■ The Phormium `Yellow Wave' will burn in this type of high summer heat, paved
16 location. It is also far too large at maturity for the narrow planting
17 strip. Applicant could try Phormium 'DueY for similar effect, but no guarantee
18 this selection will not sun burn as well.
19 • The Xylosma congestum is entirely unsuitable for the location drawn. It is a
20 small tree is left unpruned, and has rather vicious thorns. It would need to be
21 pruned twice a month to keep it from blocking view through the driving
22 lanes. Suggest a more suitable small shrub selection of Caryopteris x
23 clandonensis or Rhaphiolepis x'Georgia Petite'.
24
25 Member Nicholson:
26 • Member Thayer is good at knowing what works and does not work for landscaping. The
27 aforementioned comments should be part of the record.
28 • Asked if the owner has any concerns about over planting of landscaping in terms of tree
29 canopy and shade.
30
31 Ed Blair:
32 • Related to the landscaping recommendations from Member Thayer, noted the
33 aforementioned is basically the same plant list for a similar-type project he was involved
34 with in Santa Rosa where the landscaping for this project is beautiful.
35 • Discussed the issue of shade trees and location.
36
37 Member Morrow:
38 • Asked if the applicant representative consulted with an arborist for the Santa Rosa
39 project?
40 • Asked about the origin of the landscape plan for the Santa Rosa project.
41
42 Ed Blair:
43 • Consulted with no arborist. Landscaping selection was from a plant list from another
44 project where the plant species selected were quantified relative to number and size in
45 gallons necessary.
46 • The landscape plan for the Santa Rosa gas station project came from the original site
47 design of 2011.
48
49 Jerry Martyn:
50 • Related to landscaping, the intent is to comply with City landscaping standards.
51 Acknowledged the importance of having a landscape architect that understands what
52 vegetative species works and what does not and that takes into consideration the drought
53 conditions.
54
55 Member Nicholson:
Design Review Board September 24, 2015
Page 4
1 • Recommends landscaping consideration be given to the future on the site rather than
2 base/focus on past practices for a project done in Santa Rosa. Related to tree plantings,
3 do not want to overcrowd the site.
4 • Supports the Planning Commission review the landscaping plan and design aspects of
5 the project. It is not the purview of the DRB to require applicants `scrape off their
6 properties and propose architectural masterpieces.' While the proposed renovation will
7 improve the operation of the carwash from a design perspective the project does not fit
8 architecturally with the other buildings associated with the business.
9 • Is of the opinion the applicants/property owner should respond to the DRB comments
10 and/or acknowledge the comments thereof so that the Planning Commission has this
11 information/feedback.
12 • Asked about signage for the project? Is the proposed signage located on the site plans?
13
14 Member Hawkes:
15 • It appears most of the suggestions made are that fewer trees get planted to avoid
16 potential `overcrowding' in a few years.
17 • Will self-serve bays be an option for customers?
18 • Requested clarification the carwash will feature metal siding and roofing and `split-face
19 block?'
20
21 Chair Liden:
22 • Asked about the existing signage on the street.
23
24 Ed Blair:
25 • Acknowledged the landscaping needs to be adequately maintained and managed.
26 • Related to landscaping, preference is to consider the line-of-sight and to keep customers
27 focused on what they need to focus on and that is driving ahead within the radius curb
28 and without distraction/impairment of line-of-sight from landscaping.
29 • Would be fine with responding to the DRB's comments. The focus is to make certain the
30 product is right for the customer.
31 • Confirmed that self-serve bays are available.
32 • Referred to the staff report, attachment 1, section 5 regarding the sign details, that
33 exhibits examples of signs proposed for the carwash operation and explained how
34 signage would work and provided a detail on the different fixtures.
35 • Acknowledged the proposed signage complies with the City sign ordinance.
36 • Confirmed the carwash building will have metal siding and roofing and split-face block.
37
38 The applicant indicated the location of the sign is documented on the topographical site plans, but
39 staff was unable to confirm this information.
40
41 Ed Blair:
42 • The street signage will remain the same. The intent relative to most of the signage is how
43 to effectively direct customers on the site and this would be accomplished through the
44 use of directional signs, etc.
45 • The applicant is required to submit a sign package for approval by the City Building and
46 Planning Department that will disclose the total square footage for the signage.
47
48 Member Nicholson:
49 • The square footage for the signage would not likely be an issue.
50 • Again has concern about the color scheme not matching/well-coordinated with the other
51 buildings on the site.
52 • Likes the project.
53
Design Review Board September 24, 2015
Page 5
1 There was discussion concerning the signage and whether or not it is possible and/or necessary
2 to calculate the square footage for all of the signage since the type of signage varies some of
3 which is customized to fit the need of a carwash protocol with regard to the selling of individual
4 products to self-clean cars and the like while other signs are for informational/directional
5 purposes.
6
7 There was discussion concerning the color scheme for the carwash.
8
9 Member Morrow:
10 • It appears the overall site with be a bit eclectic with the historical Redwood Tree site, the
11 new carwash bays and other service station repair operations on the site. Does not have
12 knowledge whether or not the existing service station repair shop will remain the same.
13 • Would like to see some effort made to architecturally tie the whole parcel together.
14 • It may be the carwash needs to be better advertised using effective/tasteful signage
15 because he was not aware of a carwash operating on the site since the building is
16 setback considerably from State Street.
17
18 DRB consensus:
19 • The site is eclectic with the different uses and corresponding design differentials
20 regarding the buildings on the parcel. Would like to see some effort made to
21 architecturally unify the parcel and/or provide for some design continuity/harmony with
22 regard to the existing historical Redwood Tree gas station/ proposed new carwash and
23 existing gas station repair operation whether it is a paint palate or some other design
24 feature made to the structures that better unifies the parcel architecturally.
25 • Planning Commission to review and consider Member Thayer's recommended
26 landscaping proposals and make a determination concerning the landscaping plan.
27 • Would like to see more effort made to aesthetically unifying the existing signs with those
28 of the self-car wash.
29
30 Jerry Martyn:
31 • There are plans to better unify the south end of the property with the existing canopy for
32 the former Redwood Tree Service station that was obviously designed for a major oil
33 company and presently used for parking purposes.
34
35 M/S Nicholson/Hawkes to recommend approval of the proposed major site development permit
36 with consideration given to the aforementioned DRB comments.
37
38 7. MATTERS FROM THE BOARD:
39
40 8. MATTERS FROM STAFF:
41
42 9. SET NEXT MEETING
43 The next regular meeting will be Thursday, October 8, 2015.
44
45 10. ADJOURNMENT
46 The meeting adjourned at 4:13 p.m.
47
48
49 Cathy Elawadly, Transcriptionist
50
51
52
53
54
55
Design Review Board September 24, 2015
Page 6
Attachm�nt # �_ ..� �
Cathy Elawadly
From: Nicholas Thayer<mail@lateafternoon.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2015 12:10 PM
To: Michelle Johnson
Cc: Tom Liden; colin@morrowlegal.com; Howell Hawkes (howie@pacific.net);
alan@andesignstudio.com
Subject: Re: DRB Packets 09242015
Importance: High
Thanks Michelle,
Apologies that I will not able to attend.
Here are a few thoughts and corrections on the submittal from a planting plan perspective. No
comments on the architecture or site development components.
+ Applicant's planting plan does not reflect a knowledge of mature plant sizes, plant nomenclature or
thorough suitability to our climate.
+ Specifically:
+ "Lagerstomia" and"Pisacia" should read Lagerstroemia and Pistachia.
+ The Chinese Pistache is a fine tree, there are just too many in the small space at the
back of the property. Suggest two trees for this space. And place two trees at the entry to the car wash. The
Crape Myrtles are not effective shade trees for the large amount of paving on the project.
+ The Miscanthus transmorrisonensis is overplanted for the mature size of this grass.
+ The Boston ivy is vastly overplanted for the scale of the structure. One vine can be as
much as 50' x 50'. The plan shows 5 in a 10' (?) stretch.
+ The Phormium `Yellow Wave' will burn in this type of high summer heat, paved
location. It is also far too large at maturity for the narrow planting strip. Applicant could try Phormium `Duet'
for similar effect, but no guarantee this selection will not sun burn as well.
+ The Xylosma congestum is entirely unsuitable for the location drawn. It is a small tree
is left unpruned, and has rather vicious thorns. It would need to be pruned twice a month to keep it from
blocking view through the driving lanes. Suggest a more suitable small shrub selection of
Caryopteris x clandonensis or Rhaphiolepis x 'Georgia Petite'.
Best,N
Nicholas Thayer
mail(c�lateafternoon.com
707-462-5133 office
707-362-0680 mobile
1