HomeMy WebLinkAbout05112017 - packet CITY OF UKIAH
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
Conference Room #3
300 Seminary Avenue
Ukiah, CA 95482
May 11, 2017
3:00 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. CORRESPONDENCE
None
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a. Minutes of January 31, 2017
5. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
The Zoning Administrator welcomes input from the audience. In order for everyone to be
heard, please limit your comments to three (3) minutes per person and not more than
ten (10) minutes per subject. The Brown Act regulations do not allow action to be taken
on audience comments.
6. NEW BUSINESS
a. Request for Review and Recommendation on a Site Development Permit and Use
Permit to allow for the construction of a 38 unit permanent supportive housing
facility at 237 E. Gobbi Street. APN 003-581-22 File No.: Munis 2682-SDP-UP-PC.
7. MATTERS FROM THE BOARD
8. MATTERS FROM STAFF
9. SET NEXT MEETING
10. ADJOURNMENT
Americans with Disabilities Act Accommodations. Please be advised that the City needs to
be notified 72 hours in advance of a meeting if any specific accommodations or interpreter
services are needed in order for you to attend. The City complies with ADA requirements and
will attempt to reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities upon request. Please call
(707) 463-6752 or(707)463-6206 to arrange accommodations.
Page 1 of 1
��ty � u�iah City of Ukiah, CA
Design Review Board
1
2 MINUTES
3
4 Regular Meeting January 31, 2017
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 #5.
9
10 2. ROLL CALL Present: Member Hawkes, Nicholson, Morrow, Hise,
11 Chair Liden
12
13 Absent:
14
15 Staff Present: Kevin Thompson, Interim Planning Director
16 Shannon Riley, Senior Management Analyst
17 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
18
19 Others present: Alpesh Jivan
20
21 3. CORRESPONDENCE:
22
23 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes from the September 15, 2016 and September
24 22, 2016, and October 6, 2016 meetings are available for review and approval.
25
26 M/S Hise/Nicholson to approve September 15, 2016 meeting minutes, as submitted.
27 Motion carried (5-0).
28
29 M/S Hise/Nicholson to approve September 22, 2016 meeting minutes, as submitted.
30 Motion carried (4-0)with Member Hawks abstaining.
31
32 M/S Hise/Hawks to approve October 6, 2016 meeting minutes, as submitted.
33 Motion carried (5-0).
34
35 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
36
37 The DRB is required by the City Code to review and make a recommendation on all Site
38 Development Permit applications.
39
40 6. NEW BUSINESS:
41 6A. Request for Review and Recommendation on a Minor Site Development Permit to allow
42 exterior building improvements to include replacement of existing awnings, remove
43 rooftop pyramid element over the main entryway and the addition of downward facing
44 accent lighting along the main entryway at 1139 N. State Street, Kentucky Fried Chicken
45 (KFC). APN 001-360-25 File No.: Munis 2455-SDP-ZA.
46
47 Interim Planning Director Thompson:
48 • Member Nicholson submitted written comments regarding the KFC remodel that have
49 been forwarded to the applicant and are incorporated into the minutes as attachment 1.
50 In response to these comments, the applicant has requested today's DRB meeting be
51 postponed to allow time to review the comments and possibly make revisions to the
52 project.
Design Review Board January 31, 2017
Page 1
1
2 • DRB members have the option of submitting written comments to Planning staff
3 regarding the proposed project that can also be forwarded to the applicant for review.
4 • Planning staff will schedule another DRB meeting when the applicant is ready for the
5 proposed project to be reviewed.
6
7 6B. Preliminary Design Review for a Hotel at 1601 Airport Park Boulevard. There is no APN
8 yet because of the recently approved Subdivision.
9
10 Interim Planning Director Thompson:
11 • Requested the DRB review/evaluate the elevations as shown in attachment 1 of the staff
12 report and provide comments.
13
14 Alpesh Jivan:
15 • He and his family have been in the hotel business for many years in Ukiah.
16 • Welcomes input from the Board members.
17 • Would like the project to move forward toward development in a timely manner.
18 • The proposed design models that of Holiday Inn Express hotel prototype. The proposed
19 hotel is a franchise.
20
21 Member Nicholson:
22 • Provided written comments regarding the Holiday Inn Express hotel project.
23
24 The aforementioned comments are incorporated into the minutes as attachment 2.
25
26 DRB:
27 • Asked about the 40-foot height limitation for buildings in the AIP and how this would apply
28 to the proposed project.
29
30 Interim Planning Director Thompson:
31 • The applicant has requested a preliminary review of the proposed hotel project even
32 though no site plan is included.
33 • While the Airport Industrial Park (AIP) PD Ordinance 1098 that governs development in
34 the AIP has a 40-foot maximum height limitation for buildings, there is the opportunity to
35 go higher through discretionary review approval.
36 • A slope analysis is necessary as it pertains to the Airport Land Use Plan and as it
37 pertains to the 40-foot height limitation for development in the AIP.
38
39 The DRB discussed Member Nicholson's comments relative to the design prototype he provided
40 as an example that likely is to resemble the proposed design with the following comments:
41 • Proposed building has no architectural softening characteristics as required by the Ukiah
42 General Plan.
43 • The plan is required to exhibit quality and sophisticated architectural design.
44 • The plan poses cheap, formula big box economy of materials and detailing and falls into
45 the category of bland, cuboid, boxy, flat walled and plain.
46 • There is no design relief from large open blank walls with flush windows. There are no
47 awnings, vertical or horizontal architectural elements/treatments to break up the cheap
48 boxy appearance.
49 • The building does not acknowledge passive solar potential in the design.
50 • No lighting is proposed for review. The building signage proposed extends above the
51 building parapet and this is not allowed in the general requirements of the zoning
52 designation.
53
Design Review Board January 31, 2017
Page 2
1 The DRB further discussed other relative project components that need to be addressed as
2 provided for in Member Nicholson's comments regarding the proposed building prototype:
3 • Airport Business Park is a planned development zone with special classification for light
4 manufacturing/mixed use designation. A motel is a R-2 occupancy and now, an allowed
5 use.
6 • The preliminary proposal is only to look at the elevations, but to give this context, parking
7 spaces are required to make parking mostly not visible from the street and landscaping
8 coverage is required with street trees. The architectural facades for buildings situated
9 along and facing Airport Park Boulevard is required to be consistent with the general
10 requirements of the zoning code.
11 • The proposed building design is to have a similar character and detailing to the sample
12 photograph provided as an example of the building type.
13 • Under general development requirements, architectural facades are to be designed to
14 soften height, bulk and mass. A 40-foot height limit is specified and the proposal is 49
15 feet 4 inches off the front door grade with a mechanical structure adding another 3 feet or
16 so. If it is on the other side of the street it may be a 50-foot height limit that may exceed
17 the allowed height limit.
18 • There is no mention of the square footage of the building, which is an essential
19 requirement for planning of the project. We have no idea how it may or may not fit on the
20 parcel with associated signage, parking, transformers, waste storage, view impacts and
21 the like. It is not known if this proposal is compatible with the Airport Master Plan.
22
23 After having discussed Member Nicholson's comments regarding the proposed project the Board
24 is of the opinion the design and/or proposed Holiday Inn Express prototype is not architecturally a
25 good fit for Ukiah and/or in keeping with the design guidelines established for commercial projects
26 outside the Downtown Design District even though the project is located in the AIP PD that would
27 govern this development. Acknowledged the AIP PD Ordinance 1098 does have specific site
28 planning and design standards for commercial development as provided for on pages 8 through
29 11 of the Ordinance.
30
31 Chair Liden:
32 • Asked if 90 rooms is the standard for the Holiday Inn Express prototype?
33
34 Member Hawkes:
35 • Would like to see a color isometric design rendering of the building. The design
36 presented looks `boxy.' It may be having a design rendering that shows the colors and
37 textures, the building may not appear so boxlike such that he would have a better sense
38 of how the building might look.
39
40 Member Morrow:
41 • Are the elevation plans looking at the building from the east to west? Asked if the awning
42 entry area is facing Airport Park Boulevard.
43 • It appears the building orientation is perpendicular to Airport Park Boulevard.
44 • Does the AIP PD have different parking requirements than the other City zoning
45 ordinance designations?
46
47 Member Nicholson:
48 • Original intent of the AIP was to allow for Light Manufacturing/Mixed use zoning
49 classification, but this is not the course that has been taken in terms of development
50 where the AIP PD Ordinance has had to be amended several times to provide for more of
51 a `Retail/Professional Office' and/or commercial zoning classification.
52 • Because he views the proposed building as being `bland' in character went to the Holiday
53 Inn website and found a multitude of other Holiday Inn Express building samples with
54 architectural characteristics having a far superior design. While these design examples
Design Review Board January 31, 2017
Page 3
1 may be an older design and possibly more expensive, he finds them much more
2 appealing than the proposed design.
3
4 Alpesh Jivan:
5 • Understands the DRB needs to see what is proposed in the way of parking, landscaping
6 that would likely include LID features, pedestrian access and circulation, lighting,
7 signage, and building design, color, and materials to be able to adequately review the
8 project with a recommendation to the Planning Commission.
9 • He has not yet submitted a Planning application and the associated requirements that
10 accompany the application. Today is only a preliminary look at the proposed hotel
11 project.
12 • The prototype is 92 rooms.
13 • Is able to get samples of drawings of actual hotels that have been built.
14 • Confirmed the elevation plans are looking at the building north to south, parking lot.
15 • The awning entry area faces northerly.
16 • Generally discussed the location of the parking lot area, setbacks, building
17 canopy/awning.
18 • Confirmed the other examples of Holiday Inn Express buildings provided by Member
19 Nicholson are much older than the new `formula blue' design the franchise has come out
20 with. The proposed design for the hotel is representative of the new design concept for
21 Holiday Inn Express buildings by`IHG.'
22
23 Member Nicholson:
24 • Is of the opinion the proposed design for the hotel is not appropriate for Ukiah and would
25 support project denial if this is the best Holiday Inn Express hotel design the applicant
26 can propose.
27 • Because the DRB is presented with a preliminary design without full documentation or
28 site plan that addresses landscaping, parking, lighting, signage wanted to give some
29 `honesY feedback. If there is no opportunity to change the design, he could not support
30 the project.
31
32 Member Hise:
33 • The AIP PD Ordinance 1098 specifically addresses buildings not having the appearance
34 like the hotel building being proposed.
35 • Would like to see a building design that has some unique characteristics, fenestration, is
36 architecturally pleasing, and a good fit for Ukiah.
37 • Asked about suggestions how to make the project more passive solar?
38
39 Interim Planning Director Thompson:
40 • Confirmed the proposed project is subject to the parking requirements of AIP PD
41 Ordinance 1098.
42 • AIP PD Ordinance 1098, Section 5, Site Planning and Design Standards for Commercial
43 Development provides development standards relative to yard setbacks (front, side and
44 rear and relief thereof), maximum building height and relief thereof, Minimum lot area,
45 maximum lot coverage and relief thereof, building orientation, architectural design, signs,
46 pedestrian orientation, lighting, energy conservation, outdoor storage and service areas,
47 landscaping, Ukiah Airport Master plan compliance regulations, public utility easements
48 and/or other guideline standards for development.
49
50 Member Nicholson:
51 • Recommends providing for shading elements above the windows; could have
52 architectural details that create a more three dimensional fa�ade.
53
54 Member Hawks:
Design Review Board January 31, 2017
Page 4
1 • The proposed design resembles that of a 'courthouse with a city inner school
2 appearance.'
3
4 Member Hise:
5 • Concurs with Member Nicholson's comments and would recommend eliminating the fake
6 stone on the building and is of the opinion this feature further cheapens the fa�ade that is
7 existing. It would not likely take too much design alterations to make the building more
8 interesting in appearance.
9 • As with most corporate designs there are categories of building samples depending upon
10 how they assess the community the building will go in. The proposed design for the Ukiah
11 Holiday Inn Express would not be acceptable in any Bay Area community today.
12 • Ukiah does not want a building that is a `cheap design pulled from a drawer of many
13 design samples.'Again, the proposed design tentatively chosen for Ukiah would never be
14 acceptable in any of the peninsula communities.
15 • Acknowledged the building has some positive attributes that include color and texturing
16 features that are architecturally pleasing. Is of the opinion there are too many
17 architectural materials happening on the building.
18 • Would likely support the sign on the building that is likely an exception to the Ordinance
19 regulation governing the AIP.
20 • Finds that the community design standards/guidelines established for Ukiah apply to
21 most project types but are somewhat problematic when it comes to corporate
22 developments likely because corporate entities are not familiar with Ukiah's design
23 guidelines for commercial buildings.
24
25 Member Morrow:
26 • Is of the opinion the Hampton Inn is a good example of what is a fairly imposing building
27 that definitely fits a formula design but the way the property is landscaped with Redwood
28 trees and such seems to `shelter' the building so that it does not have the
29 'overpowering/dominating' appearance when driving on Airport Park Boulevard.
30
31 Alpesh Jivan:
32 • The new formula blue design like that selected for Ukiah has been the designated design
33 for communities in the last five years.
34
35 Member Hawks:
36 • The proposed building is large for Ukiah and it would be nice if it were attractive in
37 appearance.
38
39 Chair Liden:
40 • If the aesthetics of the design were modified some perhaps the building would not look so
41 massive and overpowering.
42
43 There was DRB discussion regarding the mechanical structure on the building and height noting
44 this would bring the height of the building to 51 feet 8 inches.
45
46 Member Morrow:
47 • The AIP PD Ordinance allows the maximum height of any building or structure to be 40
48 feet, provided it complies with the side-slope criteria for the Ukiah Airport. Mechanical
49 penthouse and equipment may extend an additional 10 feet beyond the maximum height
50 provided it is adequately screen from view. Relief from the height standards may be
51 granted through the discretionary review process if a finding is made that the proposed
52 height is compatible with the scale and character of the development on adjacent and
53 nearby parcels and would not have an adverse impact on the health and safety of the
Design Review Board January 31, 2017
Page 5
1 general public. A 50-foot height or greater would be acceptable if approved through the
2 discretionary review process.
3
4 Member Nicholson:
5 • Height is not a problem for him particularly in that area of Ukiah.
6 • Is of the opinion the massing and architectural detail is `so pathetically budget' that is the
7 problem for him when looking at other comparable hotels in the neighborhood.
8
9 Chair Liden:
10 • The proposed building design resembles that of a 1960s hospital.
11
12 Alpesh Jivan:
13 • The architect for his project is not from Holiday Inn Express but rather from a firm he
14 hired. Holiday Inn Express has given the architect the prototype for that particular building
15 wherein the intent is to adjust the design to fit well architecturally in Ukiah.
16
17 Member Morrow:
18 • How much can the prototype design be customized?
19
20 Alpesh Jivan:
21 • Wanted to have this preliminary meeting to get feedback to see how much customization
22 can be done.
23 • While the project has a boxlike appearance, views the project as a `contemporary design'
24 where the primary focus is on interior space rather than the exterior. Understands the
25 importance of providing for an architecturally pleasing exterior design.
26
27 Member Hise:
28 • Has knowledge of corporate images that have taken the `box' and done a great job
29 designing it without a lot of design elements added to it. While these type of box design
30 buildings may stand out they are fairly flat and `boxlike' and have the ability to make more
31 of a design statement with the application of architectural pleasing treatments, color,
32 textures, and materials that complement the building rather than trying to
33 overcompensate in this regard with the application of design elements that are not
34 architecturally pleasing and/or complementary. Is of the opinion the proposed project is
35 basically a box building that does not have very much treatment or design elements with
36 just the application of color and not in a `very thought ouY way.
37 • He made some suggestions as to treatment types and/or design elements that would
38 complement the building architecturally.
39
40 Member Morrow:
41 • Is it possible for the applicant to show the DRB different prototypes of Holiday Inn
42 Express buildings?
43
44 Member Nicholson:
45 • Based on his experience as a designer, there are not a lot of design options for corporate
46 prototype building samples.
47
48 Alpesh Jivan:
49 • He is moving from concentrated architectural designs and styles of buildings for more of
50 a simple contemporary architectural style building and implement native landscaping
51 trees/vegetation to enhance/complement that building that is a contemporary design
52 rather than the traditionally unique style of architecture.
53
54 DRB general comments:
Design Review Board January 31, 2017
Page 6
1 • Would need to see a complete set of site plans in order to fully and appropriately
2 evaluate the proposed project and make comments.
3 • Parking should not be visible from the street.
4 • Provide for less architectural detail and eliminate the fake stone.
5 • As designed, building prototype is not an architectural good fit for Ukiah.
6 • The box building can be fixed to be more architecturally interesting.
7 • Install landscaping to enhance the building architecturally.
8
9 Member Morrow:
10 • Related to the design aspects, asked the applicant to consider certain accents,
11 accessories that would physically improve the appearance of the box structure that may
12 include a pitched roof.
13
14 DRB consensus:
15 • Based on the discussion above regarding the design aspects of the proposed project
16 would not support approval, as currently designed.
17 • Would be amenable to having a special DRB meeting to review the proposed Holiday Inn
18 Express project when the applicant is ready to formally present the project.
19
20 Senior Management Analyst Riley:
21 • A hotel feasibility study was conducted for potential hotel development in the Downtown
22 area and finds this document to be very helpful and informative. It may be the applicant
23 and/or his architect may want to review this study for informational purposes. The study
24 talks about what kind of hotels Ukiah can support.
25 • The Hotel feasibility study will be presented to City Council on February 15, 2017.
26
27 7. MATTERS FROM THE BOARD:
28
29 8. MATTERS FROM STAFF:
30
31 9. SET NEXT MEETING
32 The next regular meeting will be scheduled based on project need.
33
34 10. ADJOURNMENT
35 The meeting adjourned at 4:02 p.m.
36
37
38 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
Design Review Board January 31, 2017
Page 7
Afi�cachm�:nt �# �
From Design Review Board member Alan Nicholson January 30, 2017
A response to a proposal from the Kentucky Fried Chicken franchise in the City of Ukiah to remodel the
exterior of their existing building, requiring a Minor Site Development Permit
Today, KFC has more than 18,000 outlets in 115 countries around the world.
F_. KFC is getting a makeover.
��� xFC= —_ The chicken chain is now rolling out a new,fast-casual-
- - �=""" inspired design that the brand began testing in 2014.
S e v e n t y p e r c e n t o f t h e b r a n d's 4,5 0 0 r e s t a u r a n t s w i l l
_��,� _—_ � be updated by the end of 2017, using a revitalization
strategy crafted by FRCH Design Worldwide.
FRCH describes itself as a "global brand experience firm specializing in fast casual concepts,"which has
previously worked with brands including McDonald's, California Pizza Kitchen, and Taco Bell.
The new design is intended to modernize the chain's appearance,with a cleaner and bolder look.The
revamped locations include stark red and white walls,furniture, and decoration.
We simplified and stripped back the legendary Sanders, mixing heritage with a modern,flattened
rendering of KFC's iconic founder. On packaging,we harkened back to the playful red bars of the 50's
and bold black Col Sander's faces that had made KFC so unmistakable.
In reviewing the request for design review, I have some general thoughts on the design approach, as
well as a few specific responses to the proposal. � I
The city of Ukiah has designated the Downton Design District and adopted Guidelines for businesses
both in this district and outside this special zoning district to protect, preserve, and retain the local and
unique character and charm of the downtown core and historic district.The City and Community of
Ukiah are built on pride of place and preserving the historical and quickly disappearing charm of small
town character.
KFC is in the process of revitalizing 4,500 franchises by the end of this year.The inspiration of this
branding revitalization is a return to the early 50's and the origins of KFC. Cities across the world have
been trying to evolve from this franchise fashion for fifty years.This creates a conflict in identity for both
the City of Ukiah and the KFC franchise. When KFC went through the City Planning Commission for their
last revitalization in 2007,they were required to reduce the amount of red striping, remove proposed
red stripped awnings on the front of the building, and harmonize with the Guidelines and the
neighborhood by adopting a more compatible neutral color palate.
� �
The current proposal is an affront to and exhibits a complete disregard for the Design Guidelines and the
Ukiah Municipal Code. The goals of KFC have always been to participate both economically and visually
in their local community and be good neighbors. This is not an acceptable visual statement.
1. The building front or street elevation proposes removing the only element which ties this box to
the local character, and that is the pitched entry roof.The roof must remain as an architectural
connection to this historic city character.
2. The signage is out of scale and disproportionately big for the street fa�ade. Colonel H. D.
Sanders is way too big and needs to be reconsidered at a more modest size. Please refer to the
Design Guidelines in the Signs section.
3. The existing monument sign will not match the new revitalized logo and image of the Colonel on
the building. If the monument sign is to be altered or renewed at a future time,we request to
see the proposed graphics and details.
4. The stark contrasting red and white color palate is jarring and not in compliance with the City
Design Guidelines, and does not harmonize with the neighborhood.
S. The red and white striping on the building sides is unacceptable and out of context with the
color pallet and character the city guidelines.
6. The Red building color on the rear and side elevations is unacceptable and does not harmonize
with either its neighbors or the fabric of the City.
7. The whole color pallet is not appropriate in the civic and commercial environment of Ukiah. It
can be revitalized and brought to a more contemporary aesthetic with neutral earth tone colors.
The applicant has not put forth a good faith effort to comply with the Ukiah Municipal Code,or the
Design Guidelines in the Building Design section under Building Colors as well as Signage, and my
recommendation is that the project application be denied as presented.
Thank you,
Alan Nicholson
January 30, 2017 I
i i I i
A�achmEnt # _ ��
From Design Review Board member Alan Nicholson January 30, 2017
A response to a proposal from the Holliday Inn Express franchise in the City of Ukiah to build a new four
story, 90 room motel at 1601 Airport Park Blvd. Pre-plan review for a Use Permit and Major Site
Development Permit.
Airport Park is a Planned Development Zone with a special classification (K)for Light Manufacturing/
Mixed Use Designation.A motel is an R-2 Occupancy and now, an allowed use.
This preliminary proposal is only to look at the elevations, but to give this a context, parking spaces are
required to make parking(mostly) not visible from the street,typical landscaping coverage is required
with street trees.The architectural facades for buildings situated along and facing Airport Park Blvd shall
be consistent with sections General Requirements of the Zoning Code.
The proposed building is to have a similar character
and detailing to the photo here as an example of the
building type.
Under General Requirements, architectural facades
shall be designed to soften height, bulk and mass.A
40-foot height limit is specified and the proposal is �
49'-4" off the front door grade,with a mechanical
structure adding another 3 feet or so. If it is on the
other side of the street it may be a 50-foot height
limit. It may exceed the allowed height limit.
There is no mention of the square footage of the building,which is an essential requirement for
planning. We have no idea how it may or may not fit on the parcel with associated signage, parking,
transformers,waste storage,view impacts, etc. It is not known if this proposal is compatible with the
Airport Master Plan.
It has no architectural softening characteristics as required in the General Requirements.The plan is
required to exhibit quality and sophisticated architectural design.The propose plan defines cheap,
formula big box economy of materials and detailing. It falls easily within the definition of bland, cuboid,
boxy,flat walled and plain.There is no design relief from large open blank walls with flush windows.
There are no awnings,vertical or horizontal architectural elements to break up the cheap box cliche.
The building is required to be both shaped and oriented to take advantage of passive solar energy and
solar collection in the winter.This building does not even pretend to acknowledge passive solar in the
design.There are no solar shading or collection elements,there is no differentiation between a southern
or northern solar exposure. Passive solar orientation is mandatory, active solar design is strongly
encouraged.
There is no lighting proposal for review.The building signage proposed extends above the building
parapet which is not allowed in the General Requirements.
� �
Some example of design in Holliday Inn Express
` ��
� `.�
� � ;�� �
— °_-,�
�
} �:
�� ::�� �� .�
�� � - _ ��� -�
�,� .. � `�._
, — �_�..�.a,�,,,.�
f�. , � _ ��� � .� �� � �� � �r,
", , ` �! l�
. �► { ' � �
' �
�� f
���� ���� �� �.� �� ,� j� �; � � �� ��, �- , �
��' - j�� ..� � r,� ' 1
. � ��� ��. ,� - �-�- � �3 ��.� � _ �;� �
� ��.�� ...
��r•i. ?�r �. _ � f ? `� �..'� . �• � +�•.r 'b
. + -��"f��. �-�-�-
� -�-�
� . _ L - � • . _ ^ �. _ •
' s '�.,._— _ - _. _ .. � ° r,��j1K.
ITEM NO. 6_a
DATE: Mav 11, 2017
MEMORANDUM
TO: Design Review Board
FROM: Adele Phillips, Associate Planner
DATE: April 28, 2017
SUBJECT: Request for Review and Recommendation on a Site Development Permit and
Use Permit to allow for the construction of a 38 unit permanent supportive
housing facility at 237 E Gobbi Street. APN 003-581-22
File No.: Munis 2682-SDP-UP-PC
BACKGROUND
The subject property is currently the site of TLC Child and Family Services, Foster Family and
Adoption Agency. TLC has indicated that they will not renew their lease and the property will
become vacant in August. A commercial paint retail store adjoins the property to the west,
commercial insurance company adjoins the property to the east, a two story multifamily
apartment complex adjoins the property to the south, and a commercial insurance company
and gasoline service station are located across E. Gobbi Street to the north.
The buildings currently on the Project site were constructed between 1950 and 1951. The
larger building was a former resident now an office building. The smaller building is a storage
shed. Although older than 40 years old, the wood frame & stucco main building and wood
framed storage building have been renovated numerous times and do not meet the definition
of historical resources defined by CEQA Guidelines §15064.5.
PROJECT
An application was received from Rural Community Housing Development for approval of a
Site Development Permit and Use Permit for the demolition of existing structures and the
construction of a new 38 unit multifamily housing facility, including provision of some mental
health services.
The site is visible from E. Gobbi Street, commercial businesses, and private multifamily
residences (apartments). The project will include construction of low profile one and two story
building, as well as parking, a community building, and landscaping. The proposed project
would add new architecturally-sensitive buildings and complementary landscaping. The
proposed project has been designed to meet the objectives of the City of Ukiah's Design
Guidelines Commercial Projects within the Downtown Design District. In accordance with City
standards, the lighting fixtures will be shielded or recessed to reduce light bleed to adjoining
properties, and each light fixture will be directed downward and away from adjoining
properties and right-of-way, so that no on-site light fixture directly illuminates an area off the
site. Minimal signage is proposed.
S:\Planning\2017\237 E. Gobbi Street\DRB\237 E Gobbi_SDP-UP_DRB 04282017.doc
ITEM NO. 6_a
DATE: Mav 11, 2017
While the Project will remove several non-native and native trees and shrubs, the Project
includes the installation of trees and landscaping throughout the site that will result in a net
increase to native trees and shrubs.
STAFF REQUEST
Staff is requesting the Design Review Board to review the project for Design and make a
recommendation to the Zoning the Administrator.
Attachment 1: Site Plans dated stamped April 18, 2017
Attachment 2: Design Guidelines — Commercial Projects Outside fhe Downfown Design
District
S:\Planning\2017\237 E. Gobbi Street\DRB\237 E Gobbi_SDP-UP_DRB 04282017.doc
PLA�N GHEGK SFT
U1�IT TY�� SGH�DUL� BUILDING �fi��� G�LGUL�TIOI� U1�IT L�G�1�D DA�TE:
REV 1510N5
15T FLOOR: QTY R�5IDENTII�L:
51NGL� ROOM OGGUPI�NGY: 12 15T FLOOR: q,1q8 5.�. 51NGLE ROOM
ON� B�DROOM UNIT: 4 2ND �LOOR: 8,456 S.F. OGGUP�NGY
I
51N6LE ROOM H1�NDIGI�P: 2 2ND �LOOR DEGKS: 1,1�4 S.F. '
�
ON� B�DROOM H�NDIG�P: 1 1 BEDROOM UNIT ��w
M�NI�GER'S UNIT (3 B�D): 1 1�DMIN15TR1�TION: 2,028 S.F. °�� GONSTRUGTION 5ET
GOMMON �RE1�: qq6 S.F. ��� (D51GN�tTURE REQUIR�D)
2ND FLOOR: 3 �EDROOM
���,
51NGL� ROOM OGGUPI�NGY: 10 TOT�LS: , ���
M1�NI�GER 5 UNIT I ��cT � b
51NGL� ROOM OGGUP�NGY XL. 2 R�5IDENTI�L (W/O DEGKS) 1�,6�4 5.�. � �ti r�o
�
ON� B�DROOM UNIT: 6 �DMIN � GOMMON: 3,024 S.F. I � a � � o � ¢
�D M I N 1 5 T R�T I O N � i P � � U M W o
T O T�L. M�I N T�N�N G E � � a a w
51NGL� i�00M OGGUP�NGY: 26 - - - - - - - - - - - - - �5r oBBiNSrR��r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ���� � S``�'�
r�
ON� B�DROOM UNITS: 11
M�N�G�R'S UNIT 3-B�D : 1 GOMMON U5� �RE� �PN: 003-581-022 , I II I I' I 11 W � �� �
l � l0'-11��6' 66'-0" 5 � 26-1 26-0 23-2 F�i/ (� N N �
\I I � / v�
� I \I I / 24'_0" 24'_0" 18'-0° <�>TREES TO REMAIN � V ^� U
TOT�L UNITS: �� \\\ � I / �� WOODEN (SHOWN GREEN) oo �
� � �� ��� �T�
� \ \ I /// �� � � �/ ENGL05URE �� O h+i �� �'
\ � � � '�� �/,� � \ �� � ��� � � �
\ � � �',/ � / � � � � 217.80 �516NA6E , �� N w U
� �
� �� � ���j —�_��y�=� — ---- ------- ------- -- -- -- — --- �--� ' r-- � l � W
- - � � �—= � 1`� u, UTILITY EASEMENT I M--1
— � — / � j <T — � � �"� W �
_ —� �/� - � - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' � N
�
— , � �� �����, y�y� ,�� ° PGE � ' � a x � x
�� � � `,���\��`�`���� �%� TR�NS - a �,o v
1 I� � �� '
\ � � i _L1 � _-= � %�� i i �i�,= � - - - ' � a� �
r----� �_-- � / -� -� • � ��_ �. M--� � �"�
i� --�i _ � 1 <E>REDWOOD i ��� � '� � - �\�� �i� ING � I � I--I � �
J ��� - 1=• �- - _ 1 TREES TO � / %�� \�i I� � I �. OOM °� � � �j o� a
� u--� o L-�� ° _ � � �� �'� � REMAIN � / ��,YU( �I I� � �
' � a � °� a
- � � � .
;�, ���,, �, ��, � � I / ,/ ' `�j��� �� REGEPTION} I � N w
��--�---���__� � JL-- —------_--� / �—y/J' ����y� \ , , � � � ��� � i ° �.oBaY � i � �T o �
iir-- -�ii �- ii o / � I � \ �\ � / I \\ I �-� I 1 rn ` �
I I I I �� 1� �� r� �� � // � \� \ I \ _ I 1 I D
� � � I - � C1
�� � � I � ° _- GOMMUNITY = `
,� � �, / � \\ I 2a�-o�� - I � � „ �
�� �� \ I
�� �� �� �, , � ry I � � RO �FIGE � ^' � �
e N
II II — -- � ry
� - ---- � i ii 5 �
i�i �� �� �u ii i�i � � '-0" 24'-0" 18'-0" _ l� �� o �����iE � � ° o
n I -
ii ii ii � _ _ �i
�_� � �
ii ii -
ii ii lii — V � � O m
��--------- � L�T-- � _ - - ��__ - ___ � 1 ��� I �� ° � � � °o
�� � � �� �� �' ° � � � � �
;I ' � �� �� ��� I �� � MA�NR '5 O��IGE OFFIGE � � � � i� �
ii i ii ii i� � � � �/ //// � �r �
�� � � �� �� ��, a �� � UN T � � � � � � w iL
u ' o 0 0 - -L=� �_--_� �=J � � �`�� � �� _° J oa � � � �
i� __ � ' - - o y��'"� �i, =1= _ ° �r W l.� �
�i r� �r-_�� �� — — m ° 0 0 �/� _ _�� p �
ii i� � i i - - I �/ — 4'-0" 5'-6° � �
� I, �I— —I= a / % — — o O
� � � � � �
�� 30�-0° �� � d = _ � ° � � °a = ° ° ° o � �
�� � _�_ _�_ � a o / ° �� _ _�° a � _ �/ z
1'-0" _ ����--v 24'J i ��I— —�JI '�\2� c �� � � o� � ( � � � � Z
�� {�,� °�- -r= (' � ° °�_� _ % � I lU O � LU
o -��_
T— � �I�— —1�= a „
I d � � �% =1=� = A 35 oRDS o° /i i o � _ � �
, _�= =�_ � � / �
=1= =I= � / _ _�° "� � � � O
� � I i �I_ _I= I � I // / ER LA OV R - - � � O � I� J
� � � _�_ _�_ � � � ///� �_ _ (�] � W
� - - � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �I= I°l a � � � � 1� }
� � °°0°°°_° °°0°°°° ° � / I °� I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII � (� W �
� � II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II I� ol � I I 5R0 I II II II I II II II I II II II I II III _ � o �. �/ � Q �
I 1BR � IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII _ o� I � uuu uuu uu uu� �/j Io �, 0 � � �
� m —� —� —� � I o a � a o �/ ������jj� � �N A JL � � - z
� o I uuuuuuuuuuuuuuu � ° � I I � ,////��� � /%%/� / 1� r Z � �
I - I .����
I I � � � I � � I /�/i��a % � �
I � o0
a � � �
I � � ����
� ��3�-a° � <�>rRE�S ro BE � � 5R0 � � � ����� o � o � � _
� 5 R 0 - R E M O V��,r Y P I � ��� � � 2 m �
6'-0" 1 0�'-9" o o � �'�,� o � c v �
o I o . I � ' (S H O W N D A S H E D � 6'-0" � i�� � 1 0 7'-q" j�������/ / ° o o =
� ° � r'_ r I � �� i �- a I ��
m I � o
~ ' c� � � � i r i`\ \\�, RO � �- �_ _ �����/%�/%�i.��_ � <N>TREES � 1 0
� �
5R0 � I � � ` i � (SHOWN BLAGK) _ _ �
I � 0 � I a a I o° � �
I o
° � .�%� I ° 0`
5R0
' � r
� � W��
I ° � I � � o 0 0 �
0 0 0 0
o � 0 0 � ° �° � � ° �° � � � ° ° I , ' 1 BR -�, �, _ PGE w � ��o W�
_
zv�F =
5R0 • • �MEGHA�NIGA�L - � I � � 5R0 5R0 5i�0,; SRO o (L� �Q�°�
I TEGH. 1 BR 5R0 � � 5R0 5R0 � o I � , ,,;, IGYG ry N � p �_,�Z W
I XL PLAT�ORM � a ° - �� , � Q�� Q =
I o 1 BR � � � .�%� I �� ��Q��R �'^� � � � � � R K I TR�tSH o p �o�o 0
� • � � � � I ° �o I I � _;,;,��y , ,� ', � � � I � o���z
�,W aW
� ° � a ° � I e � -' � � Q w��=o
� o � � _ - - � � Z ��Z�
p ���, ���T I p W o O Z w o o�
O I O Q � � �� ,�� I � I � Z � ��,�a�
� o o � � ' II � i �/i ° I � � I Z � ' W,n ¢?O�w
I � � � I ' I / ^ � '/ ��\ I ���� � I /�� I �1-� � � V, �Q?�~
t— �n Q�n
I I I � � � i � . I\ � � I z �f �Ow� O
I � � � � � • � I - � � � \� � I - �d � °-QWm�
- - � I � � i � � � I �1 ��o°W
o I � � � I o �r � o �� y I � � tL� �Wo��
ry I 1 BR 5R0 5R0 5R0 5R0 5R0 1 BR 5R0 1 BR I ry � �����C�� 1 BR 5R0 . . 5R0 5R0 . . 5R0 1 BR . 5R0 ��� Q � � v�,,,��
5R0 °`"° _~
� a o X� o 0 o a � ° �° I Q 0 ° °° ° °° 0 0 °° 0 Da ���///// _ � z ��z °�
I � 0 � 0 � � I o o � � � � � � „ / 14' 0" aZ�
� � � � � � _ O I • O � W Z K J O
� O K
p � I a _ S E W E R � � � Q�° �
o I I � u� _ _ �EASEMENT �
►n � � � e e e o � W
�
e e e e = � ° � — — — _ o I I �
��� - ,���, ���i,��j�j�j�j/��j„�� - - �,�i�i�r,� �� �/ - � %%� %%%�%%%%%// ����� � N �
� /.�������/%///%//�� rr���r����r���/////� � -°°°"�� ///////�//�riia����
� � N � o �. ���j%%��� ////////�� � o p o �////////////////// //////////////////////�� ���o 0 0
� o 0
Q °
� 143'-9" �������� ° ���� ������� ������������ �� ������ ��
� ° ° ° 217.80� ° � ° �<N>TREES ° � �
r- W O E (SHOWN BLRGK) W O E
0 13'-3" 143'-9" 60'-9" DATE: Apr 14, 201"1
� S S JOB# 1702.00
.i
Q �ILE:A-1.dwg
~ i�i�Oi�OS�D S�GOND �LOOi� L�YOUT i�i�Oi�OS�D 51T� i�L�l� � �IRST �LOOR L�YOUT � DRAWN BY: P LftPOTRE
Q O 4 8 16 32 O 4 8 16 32
`r' � SGALE: 1/16"=1'-O" � SGALE: 1/16"=1'-O"
0
v
�
�
d
�
m
rn
� �-1
�
�
�
�
Z
�
�
PLA�N GHEGK SFT
DA�TE:
REV 1510N5
T.O.ROO� GONSTRUGTION 5ET
36'_2��
D,4TE:
(51GN�tTURE REQUIR�D)
(307)50LAR PANEL
ARRAY
����� � dI
(�6)50LAR PANE T. .R O P68E TRANSFORMER C>� W� W� o ��
TOP PLATE ARRAY (BEHIND) � p., H �, o � d
HEADE ► PTDTCAPPER'OP PLATE, �� P a a U M w p
�� � w
�� � PTD REVEAL"ABY55" �� S�F��
F.F. TOP P1.A�TE 1X4 STAINED GEDAR �`�I"I '�
0 10'-0".v d "°' HEAD R �
BLAGK AGRYLIG 51GN, o
Q ;_q ER ��_2, TIMES NEW ROMAN, � � [� �� �
° o �� � l"TALL � �� �� O
� � 1X6 STAINED GEDAR � (� cv cv
`J v� U
F. . F. . VIEY`i FROM GOBBI STREET O �� ,
0-0" 0'-0" 10'-l" (T� o 0
a r�i �� �
� � �w U
O��fiZ�LL Y�l�ST �L���TION� TfiZ�1�5�OfiZM�fiZ �NGL05UfiZ� � N W �
1 SGf4LE: 3/32"=1'-O" � SG�tLE: 1/4"=1'-O" �T� � ~
a x W� x
�,o U
�
T.O.ROOF ~� l � �� �
36'-2" (307)50LAR PANEL 1--1 � �� �
ARRAY
� �� a
GLEf1R STAINED GEDAR a � o W a
` �
` �
TOP PLRTE BALSAM BROWN �
(9)50LRR P,4NFL A51AN PAINTS 8520
19'-0" ARRAY
HEADER Z o
�
1�-q' ° GOPPER Q ,�;
� A51AN PAINTS 0587 � � o
F.F. o
10'-0" ° � z
HEADER � o � � O �
l'-9" °,d ,� �° P�BY55 � w (L
��� ,451AN P,41NT5 8365 � � � (�/
F.F. � � O
0'-0" � Z � �
O��fiZ�LL 50UTH �L���TION fi�fiZOfi�05�D GOLOfiZ fi��LL�T
� � O �
2 SGf4LE: 3/32"=1'-O" � NO SGf�LE ~ O � (�
O � � �
� � � }
� � � Q ►►
O "_'
O �
� �
� �
z
�L Z m O
� � O �
O � v
_ �
N �
— H
�2 PANELS ° � �
� 0 W��
_ � �
— � ��oW�
— � zv�F =
� Fa�o�
J �=vZW
- � (�/ Q�uQ =
W W �
'� �°�°o
� — � J o���Z
° � O F���Z
���������
lfl ���� °
Zo�u,�'
�� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� � �W o o�
'��������� — z =Z� �
0 oWs?=
�
QQZo�
� �ZQ� o
� o�'W�
°—�Wrn�
382 TOTAL } ��o°W
�� J�
W Z�oQ�
o�o =�
W �oWQ=
Q �
za?Qw
�
w �Z p O K
0 J�Z �
Q Q Q
r-----� O
� �
� � v
� �, I
� , �
N � �
� I �
i I �
� � I
° � � DATE: Apr 14, 201'T
i
� � �� JOB# 1702.00
i
�i I �
� ii �i �ILE:A-2.du�g
Q I J DRAWN BY: P LftPOTRE
[� -
o q PANELS
`� N
�
�
�
�
�
m
3 30l P,4NEL5 �' O E
�
� -2
� 5 �'i�0�'OS�D 50L�R L�YOUT S
� SG�tLE: 1"=20'-O"
�
PLA�N GHEGK SFT
DA�TE:
REV 1510N5
T.O.ROOF
36'_2"
� � � � � � � � � � PTD CAMP051TE
\-�_�// \__ // 5HIN6LE 51DING
- �
�_
�, ,_�—_--- \--�-----
__�__-- � � PTD GOMP051TE TRIM
--==,�J_-----, , _��-----'
��� ���
PTD CAMP051TE
�� ��
BOARD B BATT
� � � � ASPHALT 5HIN6LE5 TOi'i'LATE
� /�� � � �
�� � 19'-0��
� �,,, ,,- � �� t; � ❑ ❑
HERDER GONSTRUGTION 5ET
�� " � �: � �� 17'-9��
� � - ,�"_ ____ STAINED GEDAR RAILING D,4TE:
� W/PTD 6A STEEL MESH � VINYL WINDOWS,TRN
-- � - �� - (51GN�tTURE REG2UIR�D)
� �` ; , F.F.
",_ >,
-- -' �,
------ -- �r� _ ��- 10'-0��
_, _, VINYL SLIDING
HF�DER
�� � ------ DOORS, TAN ❑ ❑
,__ � � � q �CT a�
❑ `�
/
� ==_----- -- --- PTD GOMP051TE LAP 1 br
�
�= � � � 51DIN , REV �j� �o
y, - ---- ------ 6 l EAL W
��� - -�� - - F.F. A-' � o � � ,�-�
�
�
� � � � � o-o M ° �
� �
,
�
� �'
'—� � � — " — '� W
,.
� � �
,
� /� ��` p„� N
� � \ � \ � -�� U
_ m
� � � \ � x � M �
/ � i L / � �� —� , --- A-+ �
�
>
�� ����5�� �/n Z !� � � � �� � �1� ��Q'ti
�� 5HIN6LE 51�iINf� ��� , ` ��� ��, �\ _ , ''` ��� Za`, _ � ��� - p ��j"I �
� r ' ��, � � � � � � � ��...... � =° t, �� � ;' � � ��I� � � �� ���
� v < „ _
�� 1�� � � � � � � '_ _ � SGAL . 3/32 =1-O
. � E
� ��� <> � � � � � ��
,
,
�
� ��� ��' � � �� - � - - - -
�� �� , _ , _ _ �'I
� �
� � a � � � � � � ��� � ��
� � ����� � W �
�_� �
�_
, _ - — —
�� _ — , _, _--- N N �
� , � - � -
� � � , r 1
- Y
� � YI�L�Vkp1�OIfV�-� � � _ �,, � � _. � � v� U
� _,_ i
, �
/ _
� -� -
_ , _ _ , � H�D r,.,
,: �. TA� , ,
G ' � !�� , • _ � ._. ;
� �� I�
- . i � ..,; � __
�, , � - � � �� �� o
, ,
F ' ��� ��
� �� �� �� �
� � , > � ,�� - � - � °� �
�
P � CAMP ��LAP � STAINED GEDI� T.O.ROOF H w �
5 � ING, 7"R�� EAL � 36'-2"
PTD CAMP051TE l � �, W
0'-0" M--�
PTD CAMP051TE TRIM PTD GOMP051TE
5HIN6LE 51DING
(30�)50LAR PRNEL N w� �
BOARD 8 BATT ARRAY
ASPHALT SHINGLES � � � �
VINYL WINDOWS,TAN h+�l �o U
1�O i�T H �L�Y�T I O I� PTD GOMP051TE LAfi I-�-I � a� �i
� 51DING, 1"REVEAL � ��
SG�tLE: 3/32"=1'-O" � � � �
TOP PLATE �� a
� PTD GOMP051TE TRIM �q'_p" x
PTD CAMP051TE � � � � ��ER a � o� a
SHINGLE 51DING T.O.ROO� O ❑ ❑ �� ���_q�� �
20-5 �
ftSPHALT SHINGLES (76)50LAR PANEL ` �
ftRRt�Y �.F. `
PTD CAMP051T� ���_���
BOARD S BATT HEADER �
TOP PLATE ❑� ❑� �❑ �� ❑� 7�_q��
H�� W/PTD GA DTEEL�MI�SH N
PTD CAMP051TE �1_21I �F � ry
Z o
BOARD B BftTT � PTD CAMP051TE TRIM YINYL SLIDIN6 PTD GOMP051TE ������ O m
YINYL WINDOWS, TAN DOORS,TAN BOA�RD &BATT � � °o
F.F. �/ z
PTD CAMP051TE LAP � � � w O �
51DIN6,7"REVEAL Y�l�ST �L�Y�TIOI�I � � �
,V�I�ST �L�V�TIO�I � SGALE: 3/32"=1'-O" � � j O
2 5G?�LE: 3/32"=1'-O" � Z � �
� � O �
� O v �
= � t�
T.O.ROOF � W � O
3� � �m � w
T.O.ROOF
� Q � w �
20'-5" (307)50LAR PANEL � ,�'-�L,
(76)50LAR PANEL I� Q �
ARRAY ASPHALT SHINGLES ARRAY O O � �
PTD GOMP051TE ,45PHALT SHINGLES � � Z m o
BOARD S BATT � o ,�
PTD GOMP051TE LRP TOP PLATE (9)50LAR PANEL � � �
51DING,�"REVEAL �p'_p" TOP PLATE PTD CAMP051TE LAP ARRRY O �
HFAD�R 1q'-0" 51DING,7"REV�AL = r �
ALUMINUM STOREFRONT, � � �� �� � � � � m �c
BRONZE FINISH ��-2�� HEADER cv �
1�'_9" VINYL SLIDIN6 DOORS,
PTD GOMP051TE TRIM STAINED GEDAR TAN
�.F. F.F.
��_��� STAINED GEDAR RAILING
VINYL WINDOWS,TAN STAINED GEDAR PERGOLA HEADER W/PTD 6A STEEL MESH �
��_q�� � ❑ � � PTD CAMP051TE TRIM
W�
��oW�
�F.F. Z"� = =
=��o �
50UTH �L���TIO�I ��I-� STAINED GEDAR PERGOL4 VINYL WINDOWS,TAN PTD GOMP051TE Q�v Q =
=-ZW
� BOARD 8 BATT v o�o�
S G f 4 L E: 3/3 2"=1'-O" W��,F o
°W�aW
����Z
50UTH �L���TION ���� °
� �W��W
(76)50LAR PAN�L SG�tLE: 3/32"=1'-O" � ��Z a�
Z oWZ�W
RRRftY ASPHALT SHINGLES s_
Z =
0 ~
QQ?o�
PTD GOMP051TE PTD GOMP051TE H �o�W°
�n�,o�n �
SHINGLE 51DING BOARD &BATT '� �Q m m �
} ��o°W
W �Wo��
OP PLA
Z�WQ�
10'-0" T.O.ROOF W o�o�Q
B.O.HEADER 36'-2" z�Z Q�
�� �� �-2 �/ 4 W
�
(30l)50LAR PANEL0 °�o o�
PTD GOMP051TE TRIM A R R A YI L� Q Q a �
F.F. GEDAR 5HIN6LE5 X
STAINED GEDAR PERGOLA �-�
PTD GOMP051TE LAP STAINED GEDAR RAILING W
� 51DIN6, ?"REVEAL W/PTD GA ST�EL M�SH
c`pv VINYL WINDOWS,TAN T.O.ROOF
TOP PLATE
o ��ST �L���TIOI� HEADER � � ASPHALT 5HIN6LE5 2��_5��
ry L�. �� � DATE: Apr 14, 201'T
� SGf4LE: 3/32"=1'-O" 17'-9"
JOB# 1702.00
i
Q F.�. TOfi'fi'LATE �ILE:A-3.dwg
�; 10'-0" 10'-0"
Q HERDER --- --- i H�DER DRAWN BY: P LftPOTRE
Q 7�-q�� ❑ ❑ ❑ i i ��_2�,
o PTD GOMP051TE � i
� TRIM i
+' F.�. i F.F•h
Q �, �„ �,�
� PTD GOMP051TE LAP GEDAR ENGL05URE VINYL SLIDING
- 51DIN6, 1"REVEAL DOORS,TAN
rn
m ���
Q
� ��ST �L�Y�TIO�I
� � SGf4LE: 3/32"=1'-O"
�
PLA�N GHEGK 5ET
DATE:
R�VISIONS
GONSTRUGTION 5ET
DftTE:
(51GN/�TUR� REQUIRED)
���CT � d't
�� W �o
� � a � o � �
� aop� M ° � �
� �4 U r' W �
I P� a � �
� � � �'�3�I Z �, S�e-
0� �
BEDROOM
\ \� I KITGHEN/ F�-I �"{ �� �
I DINING
LIVING ROOM �� �\ /i � r 1 �� O
� u �� U
V � O ,
frl o o �
� W
IGL05�T � � �w �
� l W
i HA.LLWA.Y BED ~ �"{ � �
_ _ _ _ = w � ~
�-- � a x W x
� �-, �
, ; � a � �o
I � � � w � M--� a� �
� z � � �� 'i �o p � � � �v �
i � \ i� � o � � � �
� � x �� �
p i � — � 'L--- �� g� a
i B�tTH �-I � N w �
� � KITGH�N/DINING \��/ o � � �
, ; � ' � �
, , �
� � - , , �
� / / GL05ET � �
I L i /� — o \ Bf�TH �
� - - -; - - - �
00� � ❑ �
z 4
L J � � L � O u`�,
��----------------- � � d'
� , � � o
� �
�'� o i�i�0i�05�D 511�G L� — �' p �
� �' � PROPOSED 1 ��DROOM UN IT R001� OGGU��I�GY U1�IT � � �
w �..�
KITGHEN I � SGALE: 1/4"=1'-O" TOT�L OF 10 � 5G?�LE: 1/4"=1'-O" TOT�L OF 22 v � j O
'� �
� � Z
� O 1 2 4 8 O 1 2 4 8
� ~
DINING ROOM � � � O J�
� O v �
� � W � �
OO �m � w
\` � � iL/ }
�
� � � � Q �
� �'
� � � mZ
P�NTRY GL05ET i � Z 0 p
� � ln � �
� � � v
O � �
` 0�
� �
LIVING ROOM
I O O
�
I I
I I
KITGHEN/ KITGHEN/ �
o DINING DINING
� � �O �U� �
i V
� w
� OO ~��Wv
o� BEDROOM � �W�o�
\ = � �~ u
�Oli � HRLLWP�Y � I
Q H U� x
� x Zw
� � BED [_] � v o�o�
-- B�T� � BEDROOM 1 LIVING ROOM � � i o�_��
� � � � � z z
Z WK� -�
o \
�\ � o J Z�o�W
ij �� \ � � � (L ��Z°�
� 1 GL05ET � GLOSET o W s?�
o � c \� � ` � i HA.LLWA.Y � �� Q �����
� \ I p � � BED O �°„m�
am�
/ _ _ _ _ _ �� v � 1-L �iO��
wv��
z�w�¢,�i
� I � s���H
` /� I I Z Z�Z Q W
� � I ~ � ��W �
B�DROOM 3 � B�DROOM 2 � i � ,_-_ � � J o?� �
� , ° � tfl � �oo�
\ \ I //��� ��\ o o / � Q , ` Q 4 �
p i � � � , , / v II �
i � i ` �� �� � Q-
P i i B�tTH �i i�--- ' `� �� �
� i o
cdv \ I I I i �� � �i �° � B?�TH �� \1 a� 1\
� � � II � i KITGH�N/DINING � ,' � � �
� i
� i GL05�T I I I i � � �j �-—� � ` �� � � � � � �
/ � / �1 �� � / /
� �� I i � v �� ---- � � �� B?�TH � DATE: Apr 14, 201�
� �� L — — —� — — / v ° lJ�� / lJi� /
.Q � O 0� � � � JOB# 1'f02.00
� FILE:A-4.du�g
Q
DRf�YVN BY: P LAPOTRE
Q
i
.�
m ��0�05�D 511�G L� ��0�05�D 511�G L�
�
�
� 6 ��0�05�D M�N�G�RS U1�IT 5 PROPOSED 1 ��DROOM H�1�DIG�P U1�IT � R001� H�1�DIG�� U1�IT 2 R001� OGGU��I�GY XL U1�IT
� 5G?�LE: 1/4"=1'-O" SGALE: 1/4"=1'-O" 5G?�LE: 1/4"=1'-O" 5G?�LE: 1/4"=1'-O"
� TOT�L OF 1 TOT�L OF 1 TOT�L OF 2 TOT�L OF 2
�
� O 1 2 4 8 O 1 2 4 8 O 1 2 4 8 O 1 2 4 8 ���
oi
�
�
z
�
i�
�����������������..��.r..�,.q..��...����������r.����..����..■..«�����..d....����..�..
��i�������������r���i����l��a�l������i�������1�i�������������
/�_ ' __ _ i� . . . . . . . ' .
%�. .�' ��. � - �' _ ��\ �"" . . . . . �
_ /, �_ � � .--.� ' �� � ��/� _ — \_.�� � ";
i � �
� � � r �� � � � �� � � � �
= � -n��I-�n� �n�l�n� � -�■ _. . _ __
In
■.� �.■. �■ _ 11_ , 11
_ _ � . ................. ..:...........::..... ....... .� __ _� . _ -_ ___�..�:
:.:::::::: : : ................. ,...............___.__. _ .
........,..:::::::::
:::::::::::
. _ ........., ::::::::....................... :.:::::,;::......... ...........
_ ..::::::::. :.....: ... .. ......,.......,::::::: ..............,....... ........,,......,... . �..:.:_
�
___ __ _ �. ,
:�: ::�:
::�: ::���::::::: ::�: ::�:
�:.::::.:�: ::�: :�: ::�: :���::::::: :�: ..�
. ........
_ _ ______ ____ ___ _ _____ ___ ______ �.:..:.::::.
. . _____._ ______..,. .. ,_._._ . ......... ... .... __._.__., ........ . ........ ,.,_____._
. ........ . ....... .......::: :: ,..... . ......... ........ ........, ........ , ........ ,,.......
. ......... . .... ., . .............. ___ __ .. ........
:.:..
. ........ ... .
....�..�_ ____ _. __
'!������� ���r���i�=����.r ����=iii����= �► ;.. �.■�r„�.� ��
I�K ------ l�� r^r r�r� �r � ��� � �e �R ti.+a v ••� �A � —- �w
�r+ �ti � r�� � � � I�I � rr�r �� � � � I�, �+4� �� � rro
ww� �r w� � � � ��I �M � � � .. �� � " � '1�
- .= �� .= = = = U�U � _ _ = I l I�����'�'����,�` � � �
= = = � .w w�r� � � � r.��.� _.= ��! �. --- - ---
r... �. ..... � .... ■...� � � .� ...�
� .'�" � .":'� � � � :� .�': � �
— — ..�.�.�
. �.
� .. � 1
� � .
�
�
s �
► - Afit�chmeni �i 2
�
�
� s �
� �
'� s • , �
.
_.-, r�..,7.=-=�..�,.,: ..�
� ; Purpose & Intent
.�� 1 �
! � On May 20, I 992,the Ukiah Redevelopment Agency adopted Design Guidelines for the
�. .__-__-...,� . ' Downtown Deslgn Dlstrlct. Three years later,io 1995,the City adopied a new General
�s �' Plan,which called for the adoption of Design Guidelines for all commercial development
� withfn the City limits. After considerable discussion, it was decided that the most
' �=.. ' appropriate way to proceed was to simply augment the existing Downtown Des[gn
'�' � Guidel[nes for application to commercial development projects ouuide the existing
� ,_. .; -. :�:
{•r.��' � Dnwntown Deslgn Distrfct.
•. ..x•..--r.,,.,•_,�_s '
i r�� :.,.�-� The existing Design Guidelines for the downtown area remain unchanged and are
� � ,"''"'�� � included in this document as they were adopted in 1992. They wili continue to be
.� �
� applied within the Downtown Design Dlstrictas they have since their formal adoption.
' ' New guidelines more appllcable to the outlying commercial areas and commerctal
i-----°°��-w-�. gateways have been prepared and are included as a separate chapter tn this document.
.
'• � The purpose of the Deslgn Culdellnes for prujects outside the Downtown Design District
' �� • •- � ' � is �) to implement the goals and poJicies of the Community Design Element of the
' General Plan; 2} to provide design guidance and criteria for commercial development;
� � 3?to provide site planning and architectural excellence,as well as unity and integrity in
;` -'u-�........_,,.....; , � the commercial urbanscape autside of the Downtown core;and�I)to provide attracdve
, commercial areas along the major transportat(on corridors outside the downtown that
} 'y� ` '� �'� � will stimulate business and city-wide economic development. 5)to provide property
��`�w�� owners, develapers,architects,and proiect designers with a comprehensive guide for
building design.
` � The Design Guideltnes are intended to address the concerns expressed by the Planning
• Commission and City Couneil regarding a lack of desig� guidelines for commercia)
development within the City, and to fulfii the dlrection contained in the Community
!�`'"'-�- Design Element of the Uklah General Plan.
�
I ; "" " � f � � � The Design Guideltnes are applicable to all commercial development outside the existing
t . .--J '�'-.-:-..:�` Dawntown Design DistNcc, and are intended to be applied in a fair and reasonable
- manner, taking into consideration the size,conftguration,and location of aNected and
surroundtng parcels,as well as the size,scope,and purpose of the Individua)development
�— :�_w. ���....._..:. ; Pro�ects.
.j�:
_ �..�,,,�,� Architects,project designers,and/or project applicants are expected to make a strong
M-' . - and sincere effort to comply with the Design Cuidellnes and contrlbute to the
� �H� _ improvement of the Clty's phystcal image. Pro�ect appilcant's,with the assistance of
`-- ° their architects and building designers,are expe�ted to put forth a convincing creative
eHort when planning development and designing buildings.
-'B-
� Site P1ann�n
� g
�
� Natural Site Features Compatibility With
Generally, a designer should plan a project to fit a site's Surrounding Development
natural condit(ons,rather than aiter a slte to accommodate The placement and layout of buildings, parking areas,
a stock building plan. landscaping, exterlor lighting, and other slte design
. features should be compatible wi[h surroundtng land uses
Significant existing site Features such as mature irees/ and architecture from both a Functional and aesthetic
landscaptng, lot size and configuration, topography, and standpoint.
the relationship to surrounding development should be
compelling factors in determintng the development capa�ity Development should not create unattractive views for
and design of proiects. neigl�bors or traffic corridors. All exposed elevattons
mainWin consistent architecturel character. Service areas,
All required Grading and Drafnage Plans shall be prepared trash enclosures, utflity meters, and mechanical and
by a registered civfl engfneer or other qualFfied professional electrlcal equipment should be screened from vlew.
acceptable to the City Engineer.
Parking Property owners are strongly encouraged to develop
The number of parking stalls and overall parking lot design sliared facitities such as driveways, parking areas,
shall generally comply with the requirements of the Ukiah pedestrian walkways, and outdoor living areas to
Municipai Code (UMC). Deviation from the parking maximi2e usable areas and create unique design
requirements of the UMC can be approved through the opportunities.
discretionary review process prov+ded a finding is made that
Setbacks for new development should consider the
there is a unique circumstance associated with the use of the character of existing frontages. Setbacics deeper than the
, property that results in a demand for less parking than
normally expected. These circumstances may include uses minimum required are encouraged only in order to allow
that would attract young teenagers, bicyclists, or a high for sidewalk widening or the creat(on of special pedestrian
number of drop-off patrons. areas such as entryways,courtways,outdaor cafes,and
other features intended to enhance the pedestrian
Parking facilities shall be aesthetically screened and shaded environment.
with shrubs, trees, and short walls and fences according to guilding Design
the requirements of the Zoning District in which the property
is located. Architecture
Monotonous box-like structures devoid of variety and
The visual prominence of parking areas should be de- distlnctiveness,and without openings and changes in wall
emphasized by separating parking areas into small
components. The practice of placing the majority of parking planes are discouraged. Archltecturaf features such as
areas between the building(s) de-emphasized by separating arches,raised parapets,decorated comices,eaves,windows,
parking areas into small components. The practice of placing balconles,entry insets, a variety of roof angles and pitches,
the majority of parking areas between the building(s)and the and the Inclusion of reltef features in wall surfaces
primary street frontage should be avoided(see page 22). are strongly encouraged when tied Into a comprehensive
design theme.
Pedestrian Orientation
pedestrian walkways should be included that directly link all Building Colors
parking areas with building entrances, off-site transportatfon The use of strong or loud colors, especially those with no
facilities, established sidewalks, and adjacent public rights-of- tradition of local usage, should be reviewed in context with
way. They should also be consistent with uses and the overall aesthetics of the area.
architecture from both a functional and aesthetic standpolnt.
Colors should be compatible with adjoining buildings. Color
Outdoor pedestrian spaces should be landscaped and include Work on the side and rear walls should be compatible with the
such features as planters along sidewalks, pedestrian oriented �olors on the front or street side walls. Decoration and trim
signs, attractive street furniture, low-level lighting, and should be painted in order to call attention to it.
outdoor seatin areas.
- 19-
�! �1
f *
� ' '
;
I
i Site Planning �con�.�
�
Building Materlals Sandwich board signs shall conform to the requirements
� The creative use of wood, stucco, masonry (brick, stone, tile), of the Ukiah Municfpal Code, and shal! be tastefuily
l� and recycled materials are strongly encouraged. designed with subdued colors, minimal sign copy,and a
creative appearance. Every sign should be designed in
� The use of inetal buildings is discouraged, unless they are scale and proportion wfth the surrounding built
! designed in a creative and unique way, that meets the purpose environment. Signs should be designed as an tntegral
' and intent of the Design Guidelines. arch(tectural element of the building and site to which it
principally relates.
� Concrete block and exposed concrete are generally The colors, materials,and Iighting of every sign shoutd be
acceptable 6ullding materials, provtded they are treated, restrained and harmonious with the building and site. No
textured,patnted,and/or used in a pleasing aesthetfc way sign shall be placed wtthin the public right-of-way wtthout
consistent with the design guideUnes. Materials should be the securement of an Encroachment Permit.
selected to create compatibility between the build(ng and
adjolning build(ngs. Fe11CCS �t 1IVa��S
` Lighting
Exterior lighting should be subdued. It should enhance All sides of perimeter fencing exposed to public viewshould
building design and landscaping,as well as provide safety be finished in a manner compatible with a project's
and security.Exterior Ilghting should not spill outand create materlals,finishes,colors,and architectural styling. Large
glare on adjoining propenies, and should not be directed blank fence walls, and fences and wa11s that create high
towards the night sky. visual barriers are strongly discouraged. All proposed
unpalnted wood surfaces should be treated or stained to
Light standard heights should be predicated on the Presenre and enhance their natural cofors.
` lighting need of the pardcular location and use. Tall No portion of a wall or fence should be used for advertising or
lighting fixtures that illuminate large areasshould be avoided. display. No barbed w(re, concertina wire, or chain link should
be used as fencing material if the fence is visible from the
Llghting flxtures, standards, and all exposed accessorles public right-of-way (�page 22),
should be harmonious with building design,and preferably
historlc and (nnovative in sryle.Aii pedestrfan and butld(ng All fencing and walis shall comply with the provislons of
access areas should be adequately lighted to provlde safety, the Ukiah Municipal Code.No fencing or wall shall obstruct
security,and aesthetic quallty. the sight distances of motorlsts,as determined by the City
Engineer.
Energy Conservation
Both active and passive solar design are encouraged.Natural
ventfiatlon and shading should be used to cool buildings Outdoor Storage & Service Areas
whenever possible. -
Storage areas should be limited to the rear of a site, and
Sunlight should be used for direct heating and illumination from public view wlth a solid fence or wall using concrete,
whenever possible. wood,stone,brick,or other s(milar material and should be
Solar heat(ng equipment need not be screened,but should screened.Ali outdoor storage areas and enclosures should
be as unobtrusive as posstble and complement the build(ng be screened,when possible,wlth landscaping.
design. Every effort should be made to integrate solar panels
into the roof design,flush wtth the roof slope.(see page 22). If trash and recyclingareas are required in the dlscretlonary
review process, they shall be designed to harmonize with
SIgi1S the building and landscaping,and shall be consistent with
the requirements of the Ukiah Municipal Code.
The amount, type, and location of signage on a site shall
generally comply with the requtrements of the Ukiah Where common mailboxes are provided, they should be
MunicipalCode. However,signpmgramsshouldbedesigned located close [o the front entrance of buflding(s).
tastefully and in a way w6ere the overall signage does not The architectural character should be similar in form,
domtnate the stte. materials, and colors to thc surrounding buildings.
-20-
Landscap�n�
All landscaping shall comply with zoning code requirements.
Landscaping shall be proportional to the building elevations. Park111Q LOtS
Landscape plantings shall be those which grow well in Ukiah's Parking lots with twelve(I2)or more parking stalls shall have a
climate without extensive irrigation. Native, habitat-friendly tree ptaced between every four (4) parking stalls with a
flowering plants are strongly encouraged. continuous linear planting strip, rather than individual planting
wells, unless ctearly infeasible. Parking lot trees shall primarily
All plantings shall be of sufficient size, health and intensity so be deciduous species, and shall be designed to provide a tree
that a viable and mature appearance can be attained in a canopy coverage of fifty percent (50%) over all paved areas
reasonably short amount of time. within ten (10)years of planting.Based upan the design of the
parking lot, a reduced number of trees may be approved
Deciduous trees shall constitute the majority of the trees through the discretionary review process_
proposed along the south and west building exposures; non-
deciduous street species shall be restricted to areas that do not Parictng lots shall have a perimeter planting strtp with
inhibit solar access on the project site or abutting properties. both trees and shrubs. The planting of lawn areas with
the trees and shrubs is acceptable,provlded they do not
All new developments shall inciude a landscaping coverage of dominate the pianting strips.
twenty percent (20°Io) of the gross area of the parcel, unless
because of the small size of a parcel, such coverage would be Parking lots with twelve(I 2)or more parking staUs shall
unreasonable. A minimum of fifty percent (50%) of the have deflned pedestrian sidewalks or marked pedestrian
landscaped area shail be dedicated to live plantings. facfllties within landscaped areas and/or separated from
automobile travel lanes. eased upon the design of the
Projects invoiving the redevelapment/reuse of existing parking�lot,and the use that it Is serving,relief from thls
buildin s shall requirement may be approved through the discretlonary
g provide as much landscaping as feasible. review Process.
Landscaping Plans shall include an automatic irrigation system
and Lighting Plan. All required landscaping for commercial Street trees are required. They may �e placed on the
development projects shall be adequately maintained in a property proposed for development(nstead of within the
vfable condition. public right-of-tvay if the location is approved by the City
Engineer, based upon safety and malntenance factors.
The Planning Director, Zoning Adminlstrator, Pianning
Commission, or City Council shall have the authority Species of street trees shall be selected from the Ukiah
to modify the required elements of a Landscaping Master"lt�ee List with the consultation of the City staff.
Plan depending upon the size, scale, intensity, and All street trees shall be planted consistent with the
location of the development pro�ect. Standard Planting Detall on file with the City Engineer.
-21
Parking- Screening
�yp �sieewunnaa+o K`MNT9.f'{9fV??NI'JAYiA1VAWBYfABIB1V .RBNfa'!!H9P�40{:MU'NTC1t41#YlCiAH1M9P77�tl971.�A�VdRNiq4V.MPIWTRIYNrilNP19
�RECOMMENDED
.._.................�.......
� � �a
D
� �
Rear Delivery i D � �r
I
' � Commercial
Noise Screening --- -
Around Air Conditioners 9� Building
Landscaping-�
Pleasant Signs�� �
Parallel Parking � �
i i7tlYNNIt4c1YRAf11YC9
Energy Conserva�ion- Screening Solar Equipment
RECOMMENDED O N
O � RECOMMENDED
I
i
�
I
�
�
• n , �
� Solar collector cannot Solar coflector
be seen from street. is visible from street.
i,��,�tfi�Vb�,��.�.:,�.�.,..�����:��Y,��„��:����+R���,.�.��,�
Fences &Walls
Acceptable for Street Side Not Acceptable for
Street Sides
; �'
- - � ;•�:
rt: _ �
���..,—,,�. •'.;. .,
Pick¢t Chain ink
-�-=-_ - -
Picket Wood �re
- ' -- - -- �
1 s
��� �'�.
" Wroug t Iron � Post 8 Rail
-22-
i
, . .
! . .
, Pre-Appra�ral Conssder��ions
�
,
�
�
Now that you have reviewed the guide,apply these questlons to your proposed plans be(ore you submit your application.
' If you can answer yes to ail of these questions,your plans have a very good chance for approval.If you have to answer no
i to any of these questions, you may want to reevaluate your pians in light of the goals and criteria of the Commercial
� Development Guide.We encourage your design creativlty and look forward to working with you.
i.) Do your plans relate favorably to the surrounding Yes❑ NO ❑
area?
2.) Do your plans contribute to the improvement of the Yes ❑ NO ❑
overall character of the City7
3J Do your plans fit as much as is reasonabie with the Yes❑ NO O
building's original design?
4.) Are the changes or new construction proposed in your Yes❑ NO ❑
plans,visible to the public and architecturally
interesting7
5.) Does your project propose a use consistent with YeS ❑ No ❑
surrounding uses and businesses7
�
i
� 6.)Are all materials proposed in your plans appropriate Yes❑ NO ❑
; to the neighborhood?
I
I
I
i 7.) Do your plans include (andscaping and design to Yes ❑ NO ❑
� enhance the pedestrian environment7
8.) Have your plans been designed in accordance with Yes O No ❑ �
the guidelines set forth in this boolclet7
9.) Are you aware that Ukiah is in Seismic Zone 4 and Yes ❑ NO ❑
what that means to your project?
- 23-
City of Ukiah - Commercial Development Design Guidelines
Project Review Checklist
COMMERCIAL PROJECTS WITHIN DOWNTOWN DESIGN DISTRICT
The Planning Commission on June 27, 2007 adopted the following Checklist which is intended
to assist developers, staff, policy boards and the public in determining project consistency with
the Commercial Developmenf Design Guidelines for the Downtown Design District. Please
refer to the Guidelines for the full text and illustrations, as the Checklist does not supersede or
substitute for the Guidelines. The information in parentheses provides examples of ways to
achieve the desired effects, recognizing that it is impossible to reduce the art and practice of
design into a checklist of individual elements.
"Architects, project designers and applicants are expected to make a strong and sincere effort to
comply with the Guidelines and contribute to the improvement of the City's physical image.
Project applicants, with the assistance of their architect and building designees, are expected to
put forth a convincing and creative effort when planning development and designing buildings."
(Guidelines, page 1).
Discussion of Desiqn Elements: Applicants are requested to discuss the following issues
in their project application submittal,
1. How does the project design contribute to the improvement of the City's physical image?
How does the project exhibit creativity?
2. What architectural style(s)/period is represented by the project design, if any?
3. After completing the checklist below, explain how the project complies with the various
factors below.
4. Are any of the criteria below not met? If so, why not?
COMMERCIAL PROJECTS WITHIN DOWNTOWN DESIGN DISTRICT
Yes No N/A Yes-consistent; No- Not consistent or more information needed; N/A-not applicable
Site features (p. 6)
p ❑ ❑ Site design is compatible with the natural environment, and incorporates the
major existing features (trees, landscaping, city creeks, riparian habitat, lot shape, size,
relationship to surrounding area).
Coordination (p. 6)
p ❑ ❑ Facilities (driveways, parking,pedestrian plazas, walkways) are shared with adjacent
properties (maximize useable area;increase pedestrian feafures and landscaping;
improve design).
❑ ❑ ❑ Uses are functionally compatible (offices near residential, refail with office or housing
above or behind, street level businesses emphasize walk-in fraffic:retail, restaurants,
personal services).
23-1
COMMERCIAL PROJECTS WITHIN DOWNTOWN DESIGN DISTRICT
Yes No N/A Yes-consistent; No- Not consistent or more information needed; NIA-not applicable
Setbacks (p. 6)
❑ p p Setback are compatible with the character of adjacent frontages and the block.
❑ O ❑ Setbacks reflect properfy uses; vary setbacks to enhance pedestrian scale and
interest (reduced setbacks enhance pedestrian views of store window displays;
increased setbacks accommodate sidewalks, entries, courtyards, outdoor cafes).
Pedestrian access (p. 6, 11, 14, 16)
❑ ❑ ❑ Pedestrian-friendly design and orientation is emphasized.
p ❑ ❑ Facilities are integrated into and compatible with architectural quality of the site
and area.
❑ ❑ ❑ Pedestrian spaces are conveniently located, well-marked, safe and lighted
(pedesfrian spaces visible for safety, low level lighting adequate for security accented to
site design, spaces shaded from sun and elements, especially in parking lots).
❑ ❑ ❑ Pedestrian elements are attractive and functional, to increase interest in walking
and gathering in outdoor spaces (landscaping, outdoor cafes, benches, seating,
kiosks, displays, newsstands).
� � � Walkways to parking are functional and safe (walkways link parking to building
entrances and other walkways;design features demark or separate walkways from traffic:
textured or raised surfaces, grade variations, landscaped berms, low walls).
Parking lots (p. 6, 16)
❑ ❑ p Decrease visual prominence and reduce heat island effect (locafe behind buildings,
divide into smaller lots, avoid large unbroken expanses of paving;emphasize screening,
shading, landscaping).
❑ p � Adequate directional signage for vehicles and pedestrians.
❑ � O Bicycle parking close to building entries for security; covered if possible,
Landscaping (p. 6, 16-17)
❑ ❑ ❑ Scale and nature of landscape materials is appropriate to, complements, and
accents the site, building design and dimensions (color accents, annual plantings,
window box plantings on overhead projections, landscaping does not obscure walkways
or visual corridors).
❑ O O 20% of gross lot area landscaped /50% live plantings. (Plants are oftype, spacing
and sizing to reach maturity within reasonable time. Hardy, drought tolerant, low
maintenance species adapted to Ukiah climate are emphasized;parking lots trees also
withstand heat,pollutants. Deciduous trees on soufh and west. Groundcover compatible
with trees. Street trees selected from Ukiah Master Tree List/plantings per Standard
Planning Detail required on private lot or public right of way.)
❑ O p Parking areas with 12 or more stalls: 1 tree per 4 stalls, continuous linear strips
minimum 5 feet wide; 50% shading within 10 years; automatic irrigation systems
required.
Signs (p. 12-13)
O ❑ O Signs are compatible with architectural character of buildings (historic period, style,
location, size, configuration, materials, color-harmonize with design, do not obscure
architectural features).
❑ ❑ ❑ Sign program minimizes visual clutter (reduce large and multiple signs, sign area is
minimum necessary to identify business, window si ns not exceedin 25%of window
23-2
COMMERCIAL PROJECTS WITHIN DOWNTOWN DESIGN DISTRICT
Yes No NIA Yes-consistent; No-Not consistent or more information needed; NIA-not applicable
area, sandwich boards have subdued color/minimal copy/located outside ROW, size of
signs on converted residentia!buildings minimized, signs over public right of way:
minimum 8 feet above grade).
� � � Preferred commercial sign types:Painted on band above windows on stuccoed
building,painfed window signs, narrow/flat signs hung from stationary canopies, flat signs
flush-mounted on building fronts,projecting signs attached to building front, exposed
neon tube signs integrated into building design, signs on awnings. Detached
freestanding signs for structures on sidewalk line not allowed.
Lighting (p. 14-16)
p ❑ ❑ Lighting harmonizes with site, building design, architecture and landscaping
(lighting form, function, character, fixture styles, design and placement;lighting does not
interfere with pedestrian movement).
❑ ❑ ❑ Lighting minimizes effects on adjacent properties, auto and pedestrian
movement, and night-time sky (downcast and shielded, ground/low level,low intensity,
nonglare).
Visual appearance (p. 6-7)
❑ ❑ ❑ Buildings are visually cohesive, compatible and complementary (scale, proportion,
design, style, heights, mass, setbacks).
❑ ❑ ❑ Buildings exhibit variety and distinctiveness (but avoid overly obtrusive or overly
monotonous designs, or sfrong contrast with adjacent buildings).
p ❑ p Buildings exhibit high quality design and construction, with functional design
solutions.
p ❑ ❑ Site and buildings are visually attractive from neighboring properties, traffic and
corridors, and public spaces (service areas and devices screened, integrated and
compatible with site features;above criteria is applied to areas visible fo public view;rear
and side views are visually interesting, coordinated and well-maintained).
❑ O ❑ Building exteriors compatible with surrounding properties (compatible or better
quality, compatible wifh natural materials, coordinated but not the same as surrounding
properties, avoid more than one vivid or bright color per building, avoid concrete block on
visible exterior walls:if used then creative design and surface treatments required).
Reconstruction, repair, alterations (p. 7)
❑ ❑ ❑ Preserve original character of site (use original materials present on the site, avoid
damage to brick surfaces or match original character if brick must be replaced, preserve
original character of residentia!site if converted to commercial use).
❑ ❑ ❑ Protect historical structures and sites �Note11; indicate applicability of State Historic
Building Code, address pre-1972 construction and unreinforced masonry issues.
Roofs and rooflines (p. 8)
❑ ❑ ❑ Roofs and rooflines visually compatible with building design and surrounding
area (roof and rooflines compafibilify; diverse parapef wal!shapes, consistent
historical roof forms and decorations, neutra!roof colors;form, color and texture are
integral part of building design; rooftop apparatus screened).
Facades and entryways (p. 8- 11)
p ❑ ❑ Facades are varied and articulated (cornice lines,parapets, eaves, cloth awnings,
balconies, signs, entry insets, trellises, overhangs,planter boxes, 3-dimensional
articulation;avoid long, straight facades without change in planes or openings, maximize
23-3
COMMERCIAL PROJECTS WITHIN DOWNTOWN DESIGN DISTRICT
Yes No N/A Yes-consistent; No-Not consistent or more information needed; N/A-not applicable
windows along commercial frontage;building entryways have strong architectural
definitian)
❑ p ❑ Facade improvements are compatible with historical background.
D ❑ ❑ Rear and side entries and elevations are attractive and visually coordinated with
others within same viewshed.
Maintenance(p. 7)
❑ ❑ ❑ Demonstrate consideration of site and building maintenance.
Note 1: Architectural and Historica!Resources Inventory Report,Ukiah California 1984-1985—available at City of
Ukiah; also documents at Held-Poage Memorial Home and Library,603 W. Perkins Street.
Other Considerations
A variety of site and building design issues have increased in importance to the public and
policy boards since the Guidelines were written in the early/mid 1990s. Some of those are
expressed below. The Checklist will be modified from time to time.
Yes No N/A OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Walkable and bikeable communities
❑ � ❑ The project provides connections for walkers and bicyclists to the surrounding
community (provides walking/biking facilities on the site, connects to nearly
walking/biking facilities,provides shortcuts for walkers/bikers, project is located within 1/4-
1/2 of other places to walk).
O ❑ O Sidewalks provide are convenient and safe access (sidewalks sufficiently wide,
without obstruction;curbs, shade, lighting provided;buffers between walkers and traffic
provided;safe and direct street crossings for walkers).
❑ p ❑ Entrances provide Convenient access (entrances adjacent to street, minimal setback,
routes and accessways are well marked, sidewalks provided uninterrupted access to
entrances, safe bike parking is located close fo entrances).
Green building (incorporating green building elements)"`
p ❑ ❑ Sustainable site
❑ ❑ ❑ Water efficiency
❑ ❑ ❑ Energy
❑ ❑ ❑ Materials and resources
� � � Indoor environmental quality
Visitability and universal design (fhe site and its elements are accessible to people
p ❑ p at differing stages, ages and circumstances of life:accessible primary and interior
entrance and roufes, accessible kitchen and bath space and devices, for dwellings-
accessible bedroom, common room, and devices).
`See Green Buifding Council LEED and other guidelines for detailed measures:
http://www.usqbc.orqlDisplavPaqe.aspx?CateQOrvl D=19
http://www.nrdc.org/build inggreenlstrategies
23-4
City of Ukiah - Commercial Development Design Guidelines
Project Review Checklist
COMMERCIAL PROJECTS OUTSIDE DOWNTOWN DESIGN DISTRICT
The Planning Commission on June 27, 2007 adopted the following Checklist which is intended
to assist developers, staff, policy boards and the public in determining project consistency with
the Commercial Development Design Guidelines, Please refer to the Guidelines for the full text
and illustrations, as the Checklist does not supersede or substitute for the Guidelines. The
information in parentheses provides examples of ways to achieve the desired effects,
recognizing that it is impossible to reduce the art and practice of design into a checklist of
individual elements.
"Architects, project designers and applicants are expected to make a strong and sincere effort to
comply with the Guidelines and contribute to the improvement of the City's physical image.
Project applicants, with the assistance of their architect and building designees, are expected to
put forth a convincing and creative effort when planning development and designing buildings."
(Guidelines, page 1).
Discussion of Desiqn Elements: Applicants are requested to discuss the following issues
in their project application submittal.
1. How does the project design contribute to the improvement of the City's physical image?
How does the project exhibit creativity?
2. What architectural style(s)/period is represented by the project design, if any?
3. After completing the checklist below, explain how the project complies with the various
factors below.
4. Are any of the criteria below not met? If so, why not?
COMMERCIAL PROJECTS OUTSIDE DOWNTOWN DESIGN DISTRICT
Yes No N/A Yes-consistent; No- Not consistent or more information needed; N/A-not applicable
Site features (p. 19)
❑ ❑ ❑ Site design is compatible with the natural environment, and incorporates the
major existing features (trees, landscaping, city creeks, riparian habitat, lot shape, size,
relationship to surrounding area).
Coordination (p. 20 )
p ❑ ❑ Facilities are shared and coordinated with adjacent properties.
O O ❑ Setbacks are compatible with character of adjacent frontages.
❑ ❑ ❑ Setbacks are minimized to enhance the pedestrian environment.
Pedestrian access (p. 19 )
❑ ❑ ❑ Site has pedestrian orientation, consistent with uses, design and architecture.
❑ ❑ p Pedestrian elements are attractive and functional (walkways link parking to building
entrances and other walkways;planters, street furniture, outdoor seating, pedestrian
oriented signs, low level lighting provided).
23-5
COMMERCIAL PROJECTS OUTSIDE DOWNTOWN DESIGN DISTRICT
Yes No NIA Yes-consistent; No-Not consistent or more information needed; N!A-not applicable
O ❑ ❑ Parking areas with 12 or more stalls: defined sidewalk or marked pedestrian
facilities in landscaped areas or separated from traffic lanes required.
Parking lots (p. 22 )
❑ ❑ ❑ Decrease visual prominence and reduce heat island effect (locate behind buildings,
divide into smaller lots, avoid large unbroken expanses of paving;emphasize screening,
shadin , landsca in .
Landscaping (p. 22) �
❑ ❑ ❑ Scale and nature of landscape materials is appropriate to the site and structures.
❑ ❑ ❑ 20% of gross lot area landscaped 150% live plantings; landscape redevelopment
or reuse projects to extent feasible (Plants are of type, spacing and sizing to reach
maturity within reasonable time. Hardy, drought tolerant, low maintenance species
adapted to Ukiah climate are emphasized, parking lots trees also withstand heat,
pollufants. Deciduous trees used on south and wesf. Automatic irrigafion required for
new commercial development. Street trees sefected from Ukiah Master Tree List/
planfings per Standard Planning Detail required on private lot or public right of way.)
❑ ❑ p Parking areas with 12 or more stalls: 1 tree per 4 stalls within continuous linear
strips. Perimeter planting strips use trees and shrubs. Focus on deciduous trees
achieving 50% shading within 10 years.
0 ❑ ❑ Parking lots generally: Perimeter planting strips, Street trees selected from Ukiah
Master Tree List required.
Signs (p. 21) .
0 0 ❑ Signs are compatible with architectural character of buildings (signage does not
dominate site, uses compatible colors and material, lighting is restrained and harmonious,
sandwich boards are creative/subdued color/minimal copy).
Lighting (p. 20)
❑ ❑ p Lighting harmonizes with site, building design, architecture and landscaping
(lighting form, function, character, fixture styles, design and placement;lighting does not
interfere with pedestrian movementJ.
Energy conservation (p. 21)
❑ ❑ ❑ Active and passive solar and other renewable energy design and devices are
used (building orientation, landscaping,lighting, heating and cooling,photovoltaic
sysfem-ready or installed).
� � O Devices are unobtrusive and complement design (solar panels flush with roo�.
Visual appearance (p. 20)
❑ ❑ ❑ Buildings are visually cohesive, compatible and complementary (scale,proportion,
design, style, heights, mass, setbacks).
❑ ❑ p Buildings exhibit variety and distinctiveness (but avoid overly obtrusive or overly
monotonous designs, or strong conirast with adjacent buildings, creative use of natural
and recycled materials;metal discouraged unless creative and consistent with
Guidelines)
� � 0 Variety of architectural features encouraged tied to comprehensive design theme
(arches,raised parapets, cornices, eaves, windows, balconies, entry insets,roof angles
and pitches, wall relief features).
p ❑ ❑ Building exteriors compatible with surrounding properties (compatible materials,
colors, ualit , coordinated but not the same as surrounding properties, avoid stron or
23-6
COMMERCIAL PROJECTS OUTSIDE DOWNTOWN DESIGN DISTRICT
Yes No N/A Yes-consistent; No- Not consistent or more information needed; N/A-not applicable
vivid colors unless they fit within local context, concrete block/exposed concrete on visible
walls finished in aesthetic manner).
� � � Visible fences compatible with project and visually attractive (compatible colors,
materials, styles; wire fences, high barriers and use for advertising discouraged).
� � � Site and buildings are visually attractive from neighboring properties, traffic and
corridors, and public spaces (service areas and devices screened, integrated and
compatible wifh site features;common mailboxes architecturally consistent and located
close to building;above criteria is applied to areas visible to public view;rear and side
views are visually inferesting, coordinated and well-maintained).
Maintenance (p. 22 )
❑ ❑ p Demonstrate consideration of site and building maintenance.
Other Considerations
A variety of site and building design issues have increased in importance to the public and
policy boards since the Guidelines were written in the early/mid 1990s. Some of those are
expressed below. The Checklist will be modified from time to time.
Yes No N/A OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Walkable and bikeable communities
❑ ❑ p The project provides connections for walkers and bicyclists to the surrounding
community (provides walking/biking facilities on the site, connects to nearly
walking/biking facilities,provides shortcuts for walkers/bikers,project is located within 1/4-
9/2 of other places fo walk).
❑ ❑ O Sidewalks provide are convenient and safe access (sidewalks sufficiently wide,
without obstruction;curbs, shade, lighting provided;buffers befween walkers and tra�c
provided;safe and direct street crossings for walkers).
❑ ❑ p Entrances provide convenient access (entrances adjacent to street, minimal setback,
routes and accessways are wel!marked, sidewalks provided uninterrupted access to
entrances, safe bike parking is located close to entrances).
Green building (incorporating green building elements)*
❑ ❑ p Sustainable site
❑ ❑ p Water efficiency
❑ ❑ O Energy
❑ ❑ � Materials and resources
� � 0 Indoor environmental quality
Visitability and universal design (fhe site and its elements are accessible to people
p p p at differing stages, ages and circumstances of life:accessible primary and interior
entrance and routes, accessible kitchen and bath space and devices, for dwellings-
accessible bedroom, common room, and devices).
*See Green Building Council LEED and other guidelines for detailed measures:
http://www.usqbc.org/DisplavPage.asqx?CateqorvlD=19 * http://www.nrdc.org/buildinggreen/strategies
23-7
i �
�
, _ .
�
Project Review Prvicess Flow �hart
Project Review Prccess At A Glance
. - �- • .
�• .. •. .� -. .
.. .. ,
. . -. .
.
Define proJect,gather infa
and receive directlon at
the City Planning&Community
Development Department
s �
Schedule Schedule pre-
pre-application review application review with
with City Planning Staff City Redevelopment Staff
p a
Submit Site Development Submit Facade Improvement
Permit application to City �ermit Application to the City
Planning&Community Planning&Community
Developmetrt Department
Development Department
. , � ,
City Planning Commission Redevelopment Agency
revisw of proJect Design Review Board
review of project
-24-
�
± _ . � .
�
i Local Examples of Desirable Design Elements
{
�
3
- �:�
,
, . �
..:�
� • �
Residentidl Conver.sion � f� 1ltt�
. Gxarn�lc 1 �
�
. \
�il: ' . .
..-..�.° � ��= - -
�-��-..i �.._.� -�;�� -
!+-'� ^�' � •
r-� r
. r r L!� _
{Y�p. .�:��tf�� •'"
���y � �:�I ! ��
�'� Residen�idl Conversion
�w� .�,,
a �'' ' Cxa�ple 2
�
I u�, �
r , 4 _ , • .
. . . �� � .
� r
� �
Residentidl Conversian
Cxarnple:i
-25-
� � . d
Local Examples of Desirable Design Elements
aou - I
� • lllcialt Valle y
; Conference Cercter
�'�
Saint 1�ary's
���Itolic Churc�t -
- --- I �
i.�iiEl{�ilidd<<fEIIIEIUII I lii�ljl{S i13 �� �{. ! ! ���. f `{!�'. . .
�E I I
',,'p�', � �IIII Il�lr � �
�r�FI��Ir4 I: j
�
' $everly's Fc�bric
, �
BeV�r� *S dnd Crdits Storc
�.°— -,�.�:.�,..� �
-26-