HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRBM_05112017 Final CITY OF UKIAH
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
Conference Room #3
300 Seminary Avenue
Ukiah, CA 95482
May 11, 2017
3:00 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Liden called the Design Review Board meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. in Conference
Room No. 3, Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California.
Chair Tom Liden presiding.
2. ROLL CALL Present: Member Hawkes, Hise, Nicholson,
Chair Liden
Absent: Member Morrow
Staff Present: Craig Schlatter, Planning Director
Kevin Thompson, Planning Manager
Adele Phillips, Associate Planner
Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
Others present: Philippe Lapotre, Project Architect
Ryan LaRue, RCHDC
Michael Palleson, RCHDC
2. CORRESPONDENCE
None was received.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion/Second: Hawkes/Hise to approve the Minutes of January 31, 2017, as submitted.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Member Hawkes, Hise, Chair Liden
NOES: None. ABSENT: Member Morrow ABSTAIN: None.
4. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
Note: The DRB is required by the City Code to review and make a recommendation on all Site
Development Permit applications.
5. 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.
Adele Phillips, Associate Planner:
Page 1 of 5
Minutes of the Design Review Board, May 11, 2017, Continued:
• Gave a staff report and noted the three existing structures on the subject property
will be demolished to accommodate the construction of a 38-unit permanent
supportive housing facility.
• The Planning Commission will review the proposed Project on May 31, 2017.
Philippe Lapotre, Project Architect commented on the project:
• The proposed project is essentially designed to accommodate/fit the needs/special
needs for the persons that will be living in the supportive housing facility. The
residents of this facility will be seriously mentally ill who are homeless or at-risk of
homelessness where the Project provides permanent supportive housing for its
residents.
• The housing facility will include a proposed management unit, one bedroom unit,
one bedroom handicap unit, single room handicap unit, single room occupancy
unit, and single room occupancy XL unit.
Specifically,
o There will be three two-story residential buildings and a one story building
for offices, meeting rooms, and provision of services to the tenants.
o The residents will be comprised of 11 affordable one bedroom units, 28
affordable studios, and one three bedroom unit for the manager.
o There will be one office each for property management and service
providers, two service delivery rooms, two ADA community bathrooms, a
meeting room, a community room with full service kitchen and/or other
service facilities as shown on the site plans. (See sheet A-4).
• Discussed the building complex and site relevant to location of common use areas/
courtyard area that includes a trellis, required 10-foot easement, reception
RIILFHCP DC�.lJ�7XQ1151d laundry facility location, landscaping and corresponding
shade areas/trees, vehicle/bicycle parking and access, bio-swales, and designated
garden areas. (See sheet A-1)
• Discussed elevations, color pallet, passive solar opportunities and corresponding
location thereof. (See Sheet A-2 and A-3).
• Discussed project location and noted the site is in close proximity to the behavioral
health facility and/or other services available that will be of assistance to the
residents.
Michael Palleson, RCHDC:
• Discussed project funding that includes the benefit of a tax credit initiated from the
bonus density allowance where timely approval of the proposed Major Site
Development Permit and Major Use Permit is critical to securing the necessary
funding for the Project.
• The persons that will be living in the complex want to be there and are not forced
to do so.
Kevin Thompson, Planning Manager:
• Related to parking, the applicant will be asking the Planning Commission for
relief from the City parking requirements.
Page 2 of 5
Minutes of the Design Review Board, May 11, 2017, Continued:
DRB inquiries about the following aspects of the proposed Project and responses by
applicant:
• The proposed Project is nicely designed.
• Roofing material - (composition shingle).
• Fate of Redwood Trees - (These trees are actually located on the adjacent
property).
• How large is the staff for the facility? (There are two levels of staffing that include a
property manager and services for the mental health tenants from the Mendocino
County Behavior Health and Recovery Services and Redwood Community
Services (RCS).
• What kind of roofing materials is to be used between back of the roof where the
vertical wall and solar panel are located �(shake, cedar stained).
• The tenants ❑(The Mental Health Services Act provides appropriations for people
who are seriously mentally ill and who are at-risk for homelessness. The intended
use for the funding is to provide for services and for capital construction and
Mendocino County received over 1.3 million dollars in this regard. As such, this
ld-ISUHvFiQA/�P Rv1�l�-i�RC�i��L�P�-i�lll1 LC�I�-I�I RW�PoIe proposed
Project. This community has many homeless persons, some of which are mentally
ill or seriously mentally ill. The residents will be selected and referred to the
housing facility by the Mendocino County Health and Human Services Department.
The anticipated tenancy for a particular person is approximately from five to 10
years. The intended goal for the housing project is to help many of the people
residing in the supportive housing facility return to the standards of society. The
proposed supportive housing facility is considered services intensive).
• How long has RCHDC been working on the Major Site Development Permit and
Use Permit? ❑(Working on the Project with Planning staff for a couple of months).
• Will the Project provide for daylight in the hallways? (No special features have
been planned for, other than what is provided for by the windows and doors).
• Requested clarification the hallways will be artificially lit. (Confirmed the plans
provide for artificially lit hallways and acknowledged that the structural nature of the
walls could accommodate skylights, but confirmation would be necessary. Will
likely have to be careful with implementation of skylights because the priority
relative to energy efficiency on the production of solar panels for the project needs
U�H��;VI-I F�ME�L It may be natural light in the hallways of the
buildings is a possibility).
• Asked if the vertical siding is all cedar. (Clarified the vertical siding is painted board
and batten).
• What is the trellis material and will it feature wood columns? (The trellis will be of
natural wood and stained. The trellis will feature wood columns so that vegetation
can grow on it).
• Asked about the doors for the units. (The units will feature a front and a sliding
glass door in the rear of the units so that the residents can enter into a private
space).
Page 3 of 5
Minutes of the Design Review Board, May 11, 2017, Continued:
• Is there a need for some sort of separation barrier between each of the units? (It
may be a separation barrier can be a consideration as to whether or not this is a
necessary element).
• Will only 38 persons be living in the 38-unit facility or can families reside in the
facility? (The management unit is three bedrooms so potentially a family can live in
this unit. The SROs and studio units will preponderantly be occupied by a single
tenant. Tenants are allowed to have a guest up to a maximum of 14 days. There
will also be some tenants who KDYH��KdvLELDC�RlsL�11RlJD�/XSS�-IC�I-�I��
live with them. The one bedroom units are primarily identified for two people, but
there could be a third person staying there temporarily for a maximum of 14 days.
Pets are allowed).
• Asked about energy el I IFLL�� L1,PQ I�F�P�-i�Wli���b
other energy units will be electrical as opposed to gas, such as the HVAC
systems/water heaters).
• What type of water heaters will be used? (The water heaters will be 50 gallons
tanks and highly efficient where one of these tanks can accommodate three or
more units, depending on the occupancy).
• Expressed concern about traffic congestion and flow on Gobbi Street and how this
would work with the proposed Project. (Anticipate that the number of parking
spaces for the facility will be the same as the existing TLC facility currently
operating on the site. It may be a bus lane would be beneficial to assist with traffic
flow on Gobbi Street and is only a consideration and not part of the proposed
Project).
DRB Consensus:
• Likes the Project, as presented.
• Would like to see natural light in the hallways of the buildings and recommends
the installation of skylights, if feasible.
Motion/Second: Nicholson/Hawkes to recommend Planning Commission approve the
Major Site Development Permit and Major Use Permit to allow construction of a 38-unit
permanent supportive housing facility with the addition of natural light in the hallways
through the installation of skylights, if feasible. Motion carried by the following roll call
vote: AYES: Nicholson, Hawkes and Chair Liden. NOES: None. ABSENT: Morrow.
ABSTAIN: Hise.
6. MATTERS FROM THE BOARD
None.
7. MATTERS FROM STAFF
None.
8. SET NEXT METTING
As needed.
9. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 3:52 p.m.
Page 4 of 5
Minutes of the Design Review Board, May 11, 2017, Continued:
Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
Page 5 of 5