HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRBM_03172016 Final ��ty � u�iah City of Ukiah, CA
Design Review Board
1
2 MINUTES
3
4 Regular Meeting March 17, 2016
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 3:06 p.m. in Conference Room #5.
9
10 2. ROLL CALL Present: Member Nicholson, Hawkes, Morrow,
11 Chair Liden
12
13 Absent: Member Thayer
14
15 Staff Present: Michelle Johnson, Assistant Planner
16 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
17
18 Others present:
19
20 3. CORRESPONDENCE:
21
22 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes from the February 25, 2016 meeting will be
23 available for review and approval.
24
25 The DRB approved the February 25, 2016 meeting minutes, as submitted. Motion carried (4-0).
26
27 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
28
29 The DRB is required by the City Code to review and make a recommendation on all Site
30 Development Permit applications.
31
32 6. NEW BUSINESS:
33 6A. Ellie's Mutt Hutt 732 South State Street, (File No.: 1610 SDP-ZA): Review and
34 recommendation to Zoning Administrator for a Minor Site Development Permit for the
35 addition of a 448 square foot accessory building on the north west property line located at
36 732 South State Street, APN 003-031-41.
37
38 Assistant Planner Johnson:
39 ■ Gave a staff report.
40 • Noted the siding will be hardi plank, the color for the building will be Pebblestone Clay to
41 match the color of the existing building and the roof shingles will be Pewter Gray.
42 ■ The existing shed on the site will be removed. Has no knowledge about the plans for
43 use of the concrete slab that will remain after the shed is removed.
44 ■ Attachment 3 represents the site map/plan for the project (Sheet C-1, A-1 and A-2) for
45 discussion purposes.
46 ■ Since landscaping is a requirement for the Site Development Permit asked if the DRB is
47 okay with only the addition of one tree or is there a desire for more landscaping.
48 ■ The outdoor dining project approved last year is not going to happen so whatever
49 landscaping was approved for this project is not a part of the new project.
50
51 DRB:
Design Review Board March 17, 2016
Page 1
1 • Is pleased to see the Mutt Hut is proposing the addition of a 448 sq. ft. accessory building
2 for use as office space, storage space for dry/bulk supplies, a new walk-in refrigerator
3 and two new public restrooms.
4 • Made the following comments:
5
6 Roof(shingles):
7 ■ The site plans (A-2) indicate the roof would be a `wood shake' to match the
8 existing restaurant building.
9 ■ Not sure whether `shake roofs' are allowed anymore. It may be wood shakes are
10 specially treated for fire proofing reasons or imitation made.
11 ■ Would like to see a shake roof or the equivalent provided it does not look like
12 fake wood shakes in place of the Pewter Gray fiberglass shingles shown in
13 attachment 1 of the staff report.
14 ■ The roofing material needs to be `appropriate' and comparable to the existing
15 roof for the restaurant.
16 ■ Preference is a wood shake roof as per plan to match the existing structure
17 unless unfeasible to do.
18 ■ If it is determined a wood shake roof is unfeasible, is fine with allowing the
19 Planning Director to make a decision about the roof type based on the DRB's
20 roofing preference.
21
22 Electric Panel:
23 ■ Relocate the electric panel to the north side of the building where it is not visible
24 to the public and supports a recessed flush located on the north side for the
25 panel or the panel put into its own alcove. The corresponding electrical pipe need
26 not be exposed. The conduit to weatherhead should be located behind the siding
27 and/or hidden in the wall.
28 ■ Asked about the location where the City electric wires come into the existing
29 building and where the wiring will come into the accessory building. According to
30 sheet A-1 it appears the power is coming in from the north side of property.
31 Overhead wires do run along State Street and there is a power pole right
32 between Beverly's Fabric and the Mutt Hut so it is likely power will be coming
33 from the north portion of the property. Having the electric panel on the north side
34 of building is perfect particularly if the power comes from the north because all
35 corresponding electric facilities will be out of sight.
36
37 Landscapina
38 ■ While one new Chinese Pistache Tree is proposed to the Freitas Street planter
39 on the south west portion of the property would like to see more trees, if feasible.
40 ■ Do the City parking lot shade requirements apply to the proposed project?
41 ■ Would like to see more street trees on the State Street frontage. Is of the opinion
42 this area is barren.
43 ■ Discussed areas where more trees could be added. It is possible to add two
44 Chinese Pistache trees in the planter area on the west side of the property.
45 Chinese Pistache trees do not have a big root system so they make good street
46 trees.
47 ■ It might be nice to have a planter in and around the slab area after the shed is
48 removed.
49
50 Assistant Planner Johnson:
51 • Even though the proposed project involves an existing parking lot based on how the UMC
52 is written, it must meet the 50% shade coverage requirement. Due to the small size of the
53 parcel and/or other constraints compliance with the landscaping shade coverage
54 requirement is not possible without removing parking spaces which make the project non-
55 complaint with the parking requirements. However, there are opportunities to add to the
Design Review Board March 17, 2016
Page 2
1 landscaping. The DRB can determine whether or not it is fair and reasonable to ask the
2 applicant to provide for more landscaping, i.e., by planting more trees and taking out the
3 existing Junipers, for instance.
4 • Planting more trees along the State Street frontage may be problematic as it was when
5 consideration was giving to the Outdoor Dining project, but there is an opportunity to add
6 more trees in the back parking lot where the outdoor eating area is located and this would
7 require removal of some Juniper.
8 • A large Redwood tree does exist in the area where the shed is presently located so it
9 may not be a good idea to add another tree in this location.
10 • It may be the garage/recycling may go in the same location where the shed is now. The
11 applicanUowner will have to find a suitable location for the trash/recycling and have a
12 plan in this regard. Understands trash/recycling facilities now require the enclosure be
13 covered, but will confirm whether or not this new regulation pertains to dumpsters and not
14 to trash/recycling containers.
15 • Will talk to the applicant about the location for the trash/recycling bins/containers because
16 it appears the plans do not specify a location.
17
18 Chair Liden:
19 • It may be the existing shed should not be removed and used as an enclosure for
20 trash/recycling.
21
22 Member Nicholson:
23 • Every street curb in Ukiah is lined up with trash/recycling containers when it is that
24 particular street's day for trash/recycling pick-up and finds this condition not to be
25 aesthetically pleasing.
26 • Related to potential increasing the landscaping features, the applicant does not
27 necessarily have to put in more Chinese Pistache trees in the planter area located on the
28 property line to the west. They could be of different species. This would be a matter for
29 Member Thayer to make this recommendation concerning appropriate selection of
30 landscaping species/trees.
31
32 Landscapinq
33 ■ It may not be a good idea to plant another tree in the same area where the large
34 Redwood tree exists that is located near the existing shed because it would likely
35 be too shady for a tree to grow.
36 ■ There was more discussion concerning changes to the landscaping that will
37 include: 1) removal of the Juniper bushes; 2) Add two new trees and
38 groundcover/vegetative landscaping in the existing planter on the property line to
39 the west; 3) Provide for live groundcover/landscaping species in the existing
40 planter next to the entrance to the parking lot on Freitas Street; 4) Add one new
41 tree and live groundcover/landscaping in the existing planter on State Street.
42 ■ Requested staff ask Member Thayer utilize his landscaping expertise to work
43 with the applicant regarding the selection of the landscaping species for the
44 different planter areas.
45
46 Shed (trash/aarbaae issue)
47 • There was discussion whether the shed structure should be retained and used
48 for trash/recycling purposes such that with having two buildings next to one
49 another they should be architecturally consistenUcompatible. However, the shed
50 is clearly `a shed' so it may be not so important that it architecturally match the
51 other buildings. The existing shed consists of redwood.
52 ■ Preference would be for the shed to be retained.
53 ■ Does not want to see trash/recycling displayed on the Freitas Street side of the
54 building. It is visually an eyesore.
55
Design Review Board March 17, 2016
Page 3
1 Member Morrow referenced the site plans (Sheet C-1) and noted it appears the slab from the
2 shed proposed for removal will be used to store trash/recycling bins. This area will be fenced with
3 a gate.
4
5 The DRB is fine with the aforementioned location for storage of trash/recycling and noted this
6 would be a significant improvement from what typically occurs where the Mutt Hut displays
7 trash/recycling on the Freitas Street side of the building.
8
9 Member Nicholson:
10 • It is not acceptable to put trash out on the sidewalk. It should be a project condition not to
11 allow trash on a sidewalk.
12
13 Assistant Planner Johnson:
14 • The project is a site development permit and not a use permit where the project findings
15 differ. However, this may be the opportunity to enforce the situation of not allowing trash
16 on the sidewalk as a public nuisance and will look into the matter. The proposed project
17 is an opportunity to get the trash/recycling off the sidewalk on Freitas Street and stored in
18 the fenced area where the shed is currently located.
19
20 The DRB discussed the fencing material type appropriate for the trash enclosure area. The
21 material should likely match the siding on the new annex building or at least be architecturally
22 compatible. It may be the fence should consist of cedar board rather than hardi board like the
23 siding on the annex building. The fence should be painted/stained to be compatible with the color
24 of the new annex building.
25
26 Assistant Planner Johnson will check to see if the trash/recycling area requires a roof.
27
28 Noise
29 ■ Discussed the issue of potential noise impacts from the refrigerator compressor.
30 • Noted a lot of noise is generated from traffic on State Street so noise coming
31 from the compressor would not likely be an issue. It is doubtful the compressor
32 would make that much noise.
33 ■ It was noted the compressor would be mounted on the roof behind a parapet wall
34 so it unlikely noise would be an issue.
35
36 The DRB further discussed the electrical panel location and access for reading of the electrical
37 meters and noted this will be visually seen from Beverly Fabrics.
38
39 Miscellaneous
40 ■ Maintain a five-foot free zone for ADA access per City code.
41
42 Chair Liden referenced attachment 2 of the staff report (City of Ukiah — Commercial
43 Development Design Guidelines Project Review Checklist) and it does not appear the project is
44 out of context with this document.
45
46 M/S Nicholson/Morrow the DRB highly recommends the Zoning Administrator approve Ellie's
47 Mutt Hut site development permit to allow an accessory building based on 1) landscaping
48 changes as discussed above that will include the addition of 3 new trees in addition to the
49 proposed Chinese Pistache tree, one of which is to be located on Freitas Street and State Street
50 and two additional trees in the existing planter area on the property line to the west. The applicant
51 will consult with Member Thayer, the DRB landscape expert, on appropriate plant materials. In
52 addition to the trees recommends low shrubbery, plants or groundcover appropriate to the
53 existing mirco-environment; 2) related to the annex building recommends wood shakes to match
54 the existing shakes on the restaurant building as per plans from Bob Axt, Architect; 3) Related to
55 the new annex building recommends moving the electrical panel to the north side of the building
Design Review Board March 17, 2016
Page 4
1 and set flush with riser pipe to weatherhead enclosed in wall; 4) Maintain per City code a five-foot
2 free zone for ADA access; 5) recommends the fencing for the storage area be per the plan and
3 of a compatible color with the new annex building; 6) approval of the project is conditioned on
4 removal of any trash/recycling on Freitas Street. Motion carried (4-0).
5
6 7. MATTERS FROM THE BOARD:
7 Member Hawkes:
8 • Would like the DRB to discuss Member Thayer absences from meetings. His presence
9 and professional landscaping expertise is crucial with helping to shape projects into an
10 architecturally pleasing product.
11
12 Chair Liden will contact Member Thayer about his absences from meetings and his future intent
13 with serving on the board.
14
15 Chair Liden:
16 • The agenda document should contain the term, `Agenda.'
17 • Would like staff to make certain the DRB is properly noticed of an upcoming meeting to
18 ensure attendance.
19
20 8. MATTERS FROM STAFF:
21 There was a brief discussion about the proposed zoning ordinance change regarding the 50%
22 shade coverage for parking lots in 15 years and the problem with projects having existing parking
23 lots being able to meet the 50% shade coverage standard in which exceptions are typically
24 requested. The question in this regard is whether we should continue to allow exceptions or
25 formulate new standards for projects with existing parking lots. As it is now, projects with parking
26 lots cannot meet the landscaping standards and typically seek relief. This gives staff the
27 opportunity to change the landscaping and possibly ask for more landscaping that allows for a
28 nice finished product.
29
30 9. SET NEXT MEETING
31 The next regular meeting is April 14, 2016.
32
33 10. ADJOURNMENT
34 The meeting adjourned at 4:38 p.m.
35
36
37 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Design Review Board March 17, 2016
Page 5