HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRBM_08032017 Final CITY OF UKIAH
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
Conference Room #3
300 Seminary Avenue
Ukiah, CA 95482
August 3, 2017
3:00 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER
Vice Chair Hawkes called the Design Review Board meeting to order at 3:08 p.m. in
Conference Room No. 3, Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California.
Vice Chair Howie Hawkes presiding.
2. ROLL CALL Present: Member Nicholson, Morrow,
Vice Chair Hawkes
Absent: Member Hise, Chair Liden
Staff Present: Craig Schlatter, Community Development and
Planning Director
Kevin Thompson, Planning Manager
Adele Phillips, Associate Planner
Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
Others present: Gary Akerstrom
Raakesh Patel
Mitesh Jivan
Rod Wilburn
Alpesh Jivan
Mark Tiedemann
Lawrence Mitchell
3. CORRESPONDENCE
None was received.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Minutes from the July 20, 2017, meeting will be available for review and approval at the
next regular meeting.
5. 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.
6. NEW BUSINESS
a. Request for Review and Recommendation regarding a Major Use Permit and Major Site
Development Permit to allow the construction of a 4-story, 92-room hotel at 1601 Airport
Park Blvd. APN 180-080-28; File No. 2590-UP-SDP-PC.
Page 1 of 11
Minutes of the Design Review Board, August 3, 2017, Continued:
Adele Phillips, Associate Planner:
• Gave a staff report as provided for on pages 1 and 2 of the Memorandum to the
DRB, dated July 24, 2017, that includes selected design-related criteria from Airport
Industrial Park Planned Development (AIP PD) Ordinance No. 1152 that governs
development in the Airport Industrial Park as it pertains to the areas of concern that
remain for the proposed project. The areas of concern are related to sign location
and area, lighting, site design, and architecture.
• The site is designated as Light Manufacturing Mixed Use and is subject to the
requirements and standards contained within section F of the AIP-PD ordinance as
well as sections (H) Nuisances, and (I) Development Standards.
• Requested the DRB review and consider the site plans regarding the design aspects
of the project, and make a recommendation to the Planning Commission.
Mark Tiedemann, Project Architect:
• Referred to the site plans and gave a project presentation concerning site layout,
parking lot configuration and objective thereof, building orientation/height and
setback from the street, signage, architecture and design features and treatments,
building color scheme, landscaping, and energy conservation.
• Intent is to provide for an architecturally pleasing building in keeping with the hotel
design prototype and explained the window articulation, building color scheme and
building treatments help to break up the massing of the building.
Adele Phillips, Associate Planner:
• Asked about the proposed signage on the west side of the building with regard to
total square footage allowed for the project.The proposal features±448 sf of signage
where the code allows for 300 sf per (UMC §3227 and AIP-PD 5(g)(3). Relief may
be granted per AIP-PD 5(g)(5).
Mark Tiedemann:
• The intent of the large sign on the building is so it can be very visible, and add an
element of sophistication. Likes that the sign is visible from the Ukiah Municipal
Airport.
• A monument sign is also proposed and shown in the site plans.
• Talked about the building fa�ade, pool/terrace area, and pedestrian orientation and
intent of the building siting.
• Talked about the landscaping and tree species as shown on the site plans.
DRB comments/questions:
• Related to energy efficiency and conservation, asked about passive solar
opportunities and plans for heating/cooling.
• Asked about the stone treatment on the building.
• Related to the north elevation, asked about the shading on the building in connection
with the color scheme and requested clarification.
• Is the intent of the parapet wall to hide HVAC units?
• How long is the Holiday Inn Express franchise agreement?
Page 2 of 11
Minutes of the Design Review Board, August 3, 2017, Continued:
• Talked about the proposed monument sign.
• Related to signage asked about the need to have the Holiday Inn Express branding
insignia sign above the roofline. What type of signage constitutF�IJC'Dge area�
for the project?
• Asked about lighting for the sign on the roof.
• Asked if all lighting for the project will be international dark sky compliant.
• Asked for confirmation regarding the number of bicycle spaces for the project.
• Possibly provide for motorcycle parking.
Mark Tiedemann:
• Explained plans for heating/cooling systems and how they will function.
• Talked about the stone treatment and type.
• The intent of the texturing/surface building treatment is to create shadow and relief,
giving the appearance the building is not a flat, boxlike structure.
• Confirmed the intent of the parapet wall is to shield heating/cooling system from
view.
• Talked about other design elements and noted the intent was not to add Victorian
details to a non-Victorian building. Trim was added to the windows to provide for an
architecturally pleasing appearance to match/complement the theme and other
design characteristics on the building.
• The site plans do not necessarily provide for solar opportunity since the building is
designed to be highly energy efficient.
• The sign on the roof is in a cabinet that is backlit. All lighting on the building will be
International Dark Sky Association compliant.
• Referred to the site plans, and is of the opinion with the monument sign and sign on
the roof, there is sufficient signage for the project even though the total square
footage for the proposed signage exceeds code allowance.
• It may be consideration should be given about adding more motorcycle parking.
Adele Phillips:
• Additional motorcycle parking is not a requirement of the code and is optional.
Mitesh Jiven:
• Related to the Holiday Inn Express franchise agreement, there is basically a 10-year
initial agreement that contains a 10-year renewal right clause.
• All persons owning Holiday Inn Express hotels typically do not want to get out of the
franchise because Holiday Inn Express is a premium/quality hotel type. Hotel patrons
drive extra miles just to stay at a Holiday Inn Express.
• Essentially a 20-year contract will be executed with Holiday Inn Express where all
Holiday Inn Express standards must be met. Noted the proposed hotel is a new
prototype such that many older hotels are required to conform with the current
standards and if not within a certain period of time, can lose their franchise.
• Confirmed all lighting for the project will be International Dark Sky Association
compliant.
Member Nicholson:
Page 3 of 11
Minutes of the Design Review Board, August 3, 2017, Continued:
• Provided written comments regarding the project that are incorporated into the
minutes as Attachment 1.
• Is of the opinion the applicant completely ignored the City�Design Guidelines for
commercial projects outside the Downtown Design District and does not support
project approval for the reasons outlined in Attachment 1 with regard to:
o The proposed building is a bland, plain, boxlike structure and not a good fit
architecturally for Ukiah.
o No design relief to the open bank walls or flush windows.
o There are no awnings of vertical or horizontal design elements to break up
�PW-i�14DS�RCQIIJ-iCffQFKp�
o Architectural facades should be designed to height, bulk, and mass where
the proposed project opposes this directive and aspires to be massive and
overpowering, and references budget hotels of the 1960s.
o The hotel template/model being proposed can be seen anywhere in the US
or abroad and does not exemplify any special design
characteristics/elements that would be a nice architecturally pleasing
presentation to the City. The City of Ukiah does not want to see the same
architecture that can be seen in any city in America or Europe.We are looking
for a design that meets the climate, character, and design guidelines that
have been established for the City.
Mark Tiedemann:
• Is of the opinion the Design Guidelines are open to interpretation, particularly with
U'QFidP Sl9�Y�P HQJ���YH�I-FK�DC�1�I�PAJ-ICSI�I'b9FV�H�,PQHm 5°/�
comments made in January.
• Clarified the building does include awnings.
• Is of the opinion the building does offer design relief from the appearance of a
boxlike structure.
Member Nicholson:
• There has been no talk of reducing a building story. The building exceeds the
required height limit.
• The lighting proposed may be night sky compliant without up-glare as required, but
�PQHH�( ❑�I.d�DQI.U-NtDIIH��lW[�RP EV�J�P�de pedestrian view and recommends they
be defused with other fixtures that are fitted with lens to soften the downlight.
• The applicant has verbally proposed native, drought tolerant landscaping which he
apparently forgot or willfully deceived the City of in prior presentations.
• At the previous DRB meeting, Redwood trees or other larger trees were suggested
as landscaping considerations to help reduce the building scale and screen the
building. This was ignored in favor of generic mall parking-lot landscaping.
• The signage is over city code requirements and protrudes beyond the roofline in
which all the other City buildings appear to comply.
• The Senior Management Analyst for the City of Ukiah, Shannon Riley suggested
the applicant and their architect review the feasibility study for potential hotel
Page 4 of 11
Minutes of the Design Review Board, August 3, 2017, Continued:
development presented to the City in February of 2017, and it appears this hotel
proposal ignores this accessible and valuable reference study.
• The building design process is not a one of rubberstamping a corporate cliche of
bad taste in any location, but rather identifying differences in location--including
climate, culture, community regulations and ordinances--and coming up with local
solutions to corporate global financial aspirations. The goal is to create a design
statement to exceed local community expectations. This is exemplified in the Sun
House apartments currently under construction.
• Does not see that the applicant has made a concerted effort to address his
comments from the January DRB meeting.
• Recommends denial of the proposed Holiday Inn Express hotel project and would
like to see the applicant support rather than oppose the City in building a better
com m u n ity.
Mark Tiedemann:
• Is of the opinion:
o Careful attention has been made to revise the site plans that support the
concept of building a better community and disagrees with Member
Nicholson that the comments made at the January DRB meeting have not
been addressed in the revised site plans.
o Every effort has been made to propose a hotel that is a good fit for the
community and acknowledged there is an exception with regard to the sign
location and area.
o Every hotel in the Airport Industrial Park appears to not fully comply with
the AIP-PD ordinance standards.
o Considering the constraints of the site and location being in a
manufacturing zoning district and in close proximity to the Ukiah Airport the
proposed hotel looks nice on the site, as designed.
Member Nicholson:
• 71�4-1�6S�DQu�KG/[�1�i�W-IC��d-ff��H�W-1�1,J C�.1J H��IJHd�J H�
to comply with City code requirements and also to lower the sign on the building
so it does not protrude above the roofline.
Member Hawkes:
• Compared to the Costco building the proposed new hotel looks very nice.
Gary Ackerstrom:
• The hotel roof height is not out of scale and is in keeping with the AIP PD
Ordinance height requirements.
• Commented on the Redwood trees he planted in the center islands on Airport Park
Boulevard.
Member Morrow:
• The building is within the slide slope criteria for the Ukiah Airport.
Kevin Thompson, Planning Manager:
Page 5 of 11
Minutes of the Design Review Board, August 3, 2017, Continued:
• Relief from the height restrictions may be granted per AIP-PD 5(g)(5): Relief from
the sign standards may be granted through the discretionary review process
provided a finding is made that the proposed sign is compatible with the scale and
character of the development on adjacent and nearby parcels and would not have
an adverse impact on the health and safety of the general public.
• Confirmed requesting relief from the height requirements is not a variance but
essentially the applicant seeking relief through the use permit process.
Adele Phillips, Associate Planner:
• Confirmed signage, height, and parking are areas the code states relief can be
requested and considered through discretionary review.
• Related to height, the AIP PD Ordinance No. 1151 discusses height requirements in
two places of the ordinance:
o Section 5. Planning and Design Standards ± Commercial Development
b(1): The maximum height of any building or structure shall be 40 feet,
provided it complies with the side-slope criteria for the Ukiah Airport.
o Section 1, Development Standards, item 4, Maximum Building Height: The
maximum height of any building or structure shall be 50 feet. Mechanical
penthouse and equipment may extend an additional 10 feet beyond the
maximum building height.
Mark Tiedemann:
• Related to building height, the hotel is 49�❑" at the top of the parapet wall and is
under the additional 10-foot requirement in Section 1 of the Development Standards,
item 4. The building is essentially 52 feet in height at the top of the elevator shaft,
which is essentially a single box on top of the roof. According to the AIP-PD
Ordinance, the maximum building height is 50 feet and allows for a plus 10 feet for
mechanical-related purposes.
Member Morrow:
• Supports project approval.
• Finds that the hotel design/style fits with some of the other hotels in the Airport
Industrial Park and community.
• Understands it is an economic development type of project.
• Preference would be to lower the sign on the building below the roofline to be
consistent with other signs on buildings in the community. Lowering the sign would
still allow for adequate visibility.
• Finds it to be a plausible decision to set the building back from the street and would
like to see additional and larger ground-level landscaping along the eastern elevation
to create a pleasing/pleasurable visual presentation from the street to the building.
• Asked if the parking lot can be reconfigured somewhat to provide for more
landscaping such that there would be more landscaping extending from Airport Park
Boulevard to the parking lot.
• Behind the tire store adjacent to the subject property, there is a small strip-mall that
has restaurants/shops, etc., and asked about the walkway that goes across the
Page 6 of 11
Minutes of the Design Review Board, August 3, 2017, Continued:
parking lot as to whether it is possible to restructure the parking lot somewhat to
more effectively direct people from the hotel to the strip-mall.
• The space garbage/recycling space appears to be too small to accommodate the
number of hotel rooms.
Mark Tiedemann:
• Related to design, finds the sign as articulated on the building to be more
architecturally pleasing than lowering it and placing it behind a wall.
• When considering a particular design, likes to look at zoning ordinance standards
where the intent is to create something that is going to be better for the environment
and community.
• Related to potentially increasing the landscaping, sufficient space must be provided
for so that the electrical systems are well-screened.
• Related to the design process, emphasizes the importance of maintaining a balance
on the site with regard to parking, landscaping, and the building from an aesthetic
perspective.
• Commented on the building setback compared to other hotels in the AIP PD, noting
the importance of being able to accommodate hotel clients and provide for a nice
pedestrian-friendly orientation from the street and/or parking lot to the building. The
decision to setback the building included consideration regarding safety and noise.
• Further discussed the signage for the project and intent of the design thereof with
regard to service and function.
• Sees the importance of increasing the landscaping to better screen the area from
the tires that are clearly visual in the rear of the Les Schwab Tire store building.
Adele Phillips, Associate Planner:
• It was noted the applicant is using tree species for the parking lot and project from
�PQHC&L1�required tree list.
There was DRB/applicant discussion about the provisions for a future pedestrian rail trail
through the subject property and how this would work. An easement as part of a minor
subdivision project that allows for this future rail trail was approved earlier this year by the
Zoning Administrator. Attention was drawn to another easement on the subject property
located to the rear of the property and its function.
Mitesh Jivan:
• The garbage/recycle space provided for is the standard used for hotels.
Vice Chair Hawkes:
• Related to the height issue, asked if the project is essentially above the height limit
requirement and is administrative relief necessary.
Kevin Thompson, Planning Manager:
• The standards for building heights in the AIP PD ordinance is referenced in two
different places whereby an administrative interpretation will have to be made in this
regard. In either case of the two requirements, the project exceeds the height
requirements.
Page 7 of 11
Minutes of the Design Review Board, August 3, 2017, Continued:
• May consult with the City Attorney concerning interpretation of the height
requirement in the AIP-PD Ordinance.
Member Morrow:
• Interprets the two height limit requirements as there is a soft cap at 40 feet with
discretion to extend up to 50 feet with the other section advocating there is a hard
cap at 50 feet for the building and a hard cap at 60 feet for the mechanical, etc.
• The relevance for the sign facing the airport is that it would be visible from State
Street.
Adele Phillips:
• Asked if the DRB has a recommendation regarding sign area.
• Asked which is more advantageous: the west or the south facing sign.
Member Morrow:
• As positioned, the intent of the south face sign would be for people driving up to
Ukiah from San Francisco, for instance, but people will also see the west face.
• Asked if the applicant would be amenable to scaling down the square footage for all
proposed signs to comply with the City standards for signage.
Member Nicholson:
• Recommends the applicant follow the area sign regulations per the UMC and AIP-
PD Ordinance.
Mark Tiedemann:
• Could reduce the wall sign square footage and make the monument sign larger.
• Likes to design things that are aesthetically well-coordinated and balanced.
• / LL�F-�-iC�MJ C�I�AJ-i��VLJ C�$l9ZSR�A-K3 DEK11-i�I�RI Q3�1�
There was DRB/applicant/staff discussion regarding sign area and reduction thereof and
sign height with regard to lowering the �I�ImC�J�LJQ�nm below the building roofline.
Member Nicholson:
• Requested clarification regarding the landscape coverage.
• The higher shade requirements regarding landscaping in parking lots were likely
generated by climate change, global warming, and heat island effect that raise
temperatures in urban environments considerably.
• ,V�VD6SRLQ�IQ�PW-I elieve the proposed building
is a nice looking building, whereas some think it is more of a detriment to the
neighborhood, as proposed.
• at the last January meeting, The DRB was told the project would implement
native/drought tolerant plants, and this is not the case. Redwood trees were
recommended to help shield a building that does not meet community standards and
sees no Redwood trees have been integrated into the landscaping plan.
• Acknowledged the applicant did follow the rules of implementing City required trees
for the project.
Adele Phillips:
Page 8 of 11
Minutes of the Design Review Board, August 3, 2017, Continued:
• Clarified landscaping for the site is ±21% of total site and/or ±20,000 sq. ft. of
landscaping.
• The development also includes ±448 sq. ft. of new signage.
• Talked about the building siting and compliance with Public Works and Fire
Department requirements for the development.
Kevin Thompson, Planning Manager:
• With regard to landscaping and parking lot and corresponding shaded added the
City requires 50% shade coverage in 15 years. The former code requirement was
50% shade coverage in 10 years and this was recently changed from 10 to 15 years
for all City projects regarding landscaping.
Gary Ackerstrom:
• There is no parking lot in Ukiah that provides for 50% shade coverage in the parking
lots.
Mark Tiedemann:
• The parking lot does not need to have one to one parking accommodations
necessarily throughout the lot and would support providing for providing for
pedestrian access for persons going and coming from Park Falls Plaza, for instance.
Having pedestrian access is a better solution because 33% of the pavement area
would be reduced. Also related to landscaping, noted if there is too much parking
area citing Stables and Costco, as an example it is not possible to have a sufficient
number of trees to adequately screen the parking lot
• Would be amenable to reducing the sign area to comply with code requirements.
DRB Consensus:
• Okay with building siting given the constraints and depth of the lot.
• Lower the hotel branding sign below the roofline of the building and eliminate
parapet.
• Eliminate all exterior up-lighting features/fixtures.
• Put diffusers on LED parking lot lights to reduce glare..
• All exterior lighting be downcast having no glare.
• Add Redwood trees along the Airport Park Boulevard street frontage that would be
more contextual and would screen the building.
• Okay with Planning staff to consult with City attorney regarding interpretation of the
height requirement in the AIP-PD Ordinance for the height exception.
• Install native/drought tolerant plants.
• Consider adding more landscaping and provide for adequate pedestrian-friendly
orientation/access acknowledging the importance of a future pedestrian rail trail
extending through the subject property.
Motion/Second Morrow/Nicholson to recommend Planning Commission approve the
proposed project, as presented and to incorporate the DRB comments. Motion carried by
the following roll call vote: AYES: Nicholson, Morrow, and Vice Chair Hawkes. NOES: None.
ABSENT: Chair Liden and Member Hise. ABSTAIN: None.
Page 9 of 11
Minutes of the Design Review Board, August 3, 2017, Continued:
b. Request for Review and Recommendation regarding a Major Site Development Permit
to allow the construction of a 7,500± sf inetal building to provide a tractor wash bay and
5 service bays. APN: 003-230-34. File No.: 2789.
Adele Phillips, Associate Planner:
• Gave a staff report as provided for on pages 1 & 2 of the Memorandum to the DRB,
dated July 25, 2017, including all attachments.
• The site is currently Garton Tractor Inc., is an agricultural equipment sales, service
and repair business located on the south side of Talmage Road. The applicant is
seeking a Major Site Development Permit to construct a 7,500± sf inetal building to
provide a tractor wash bay and five service bays.
• The subject property is a flag lot and also connects to and is visible from Hastings
Avenue/Airport Road to the south, although access to Hastings Avenue is gated.
• Asked the DRB to provide design comments and make a recommendation to the
Planning Commission.
DRB comments and asked the following:
• The type of the metal being used for the structure as it relates to durability and wear.
• The color for the building.
• The exit route and whether this will be paved or remain a dirt road.
• Access from Hastings Avenue. It appears people can drive through the site and exit
onto Hastings Avenue.
Lawrence Mitchell:
• The color scheme for the metal building will be the same as the primary structure.
• Talked about other building features and corresponding color scheme.
• The exit route is partially paved and gravel and there are no plans to change this.
• People can access the subject property from Hastings Avenue. There is nothing that
prohibits people from accessing the subject property from Hastings Avenue and
leaving from Talmage Road. This roadway is unpaved.
Vice Chair Hawkes:
• 5 H F�i��W�I�I-MJ QID�QJ H�❑QP1�G1J[D ��1�1714-I[ffld-C�f1�❑
use of wood, stucco, masonry (brick, stone, tile), and recycled materials are strongly
encouraged. The use of inetal buildings is discouraged, unless they are designed in
a creative and unique way, that meets the purpose and intent of the Design
CXLC+I�/C�nd questioned this standard and how it relates to the proposed Project.
Adele Phillips, Associate Planner:
• Metal is not prohibited.
• The metal building is located in a Manufacturing zoning district and in an industrial
zoned land use.
• Related to building siting, talked about the appropriateness of the location.
• Explained the delivery route and access.
The DRB noted the unpaved road may be a dust issue and is likely under the purview of
Mendocino County Air Quality Management District.
Page 10 of 11
Minutes of the Design Review Board, August 3, 2017, Continued:
Member Morrow:
• Only areas of concern were the dust issue from the unpaved roadway and that metal
tends to dent easily.
DRB Consensus:
• Likes the project, as designed.
• The materials and color palate are completely appropriate for the site given the type
of uses in the area.
Motion/Second: Morrow/Nicholson to recommend Planning Commission approve the
proposed Major Use Permit to allow the construction of a 7,500± sf inetal building, as
currently designed. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Nicholson, Morrow,
and Vice Chair Hawkes. NOES: None. ABSENT: Member Hise and Chair Liden. ABSTAIN:
None.
7. MATTERS FROM THE BOARD
Member Nicholson:
• Referenced the application of inetal on buildings and ask if there is a City ordinance
that addresses what building materials are acceptable from an aesthetics standpoint
in City gateways or City limits and would the DRB members be interested in pursuing
review of this topic, siting the Barlow metal building in Sebastopol as an incredible use
of inetal.
8. MATTERS FROM STAFF
None.
9. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:06 p.m.
Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
Page 11 of 11
�.''�CXr;�1t1';:��1i �# _ _ �
Alan Nicholson, City of Ukiah Design Review Board August 3, 2017
A response to a proposal from the Holliday Inn Express franchise in the City of Ukiah to build a new four
story,92 room motel at 1601 Airport Park Blvd.
'; �,: ::.-�;.=���..�'�..�„- r,_
� _;�i: •• r. ; i'•:
` _';:F3':';�V'-":« ' y:,��'�y,... t�:�
�'' �•3�':'.�-':���a 17!. - } . -
' 'r'•`..�. +:r�r�r. '� .
�":` a .= . :��- ;�-•_ �-�*'�-
•.�� x �
`�E�'•'�'"s� d
�� �
.�i�. �,_���[r� :.s - - _.
r_�4,.r ..� a.riit';c \�� 'v
�;� �-'
�.�� ���'.�i���1X �, r ,
' �� � �... .a. „ ��"�.�.� � - . . .. � --�- ..
• � -' -- �f� .. �.� � -�aif.. � . R� - r-� .. :�ti �-ry _ - •' _ • � � .
y ' r ':�.J+�c.
d M� wj _�... eJ ��:J��'pa'�y�f+�wr�y�� • ' .� - � LS �
L]
l �� �-~���`? �_,j � '_ an . . '' . �. _'�'- ' - . . . _ ' .
i.a.�:.'. , IF� ¢ �'� �. .l �i �S d .
� .. �.{�`.:..-F :t' - S .�� . :"t*�, �— .
�!ra f �S i5. ��—_ _.w — _ '�"'�. •�
� . _ ' ,' ... �
���� ' _.__...- "9
� ��. ; , - ���;,�.� ''�'- `��' �I
� " , ��..I ,' ;=:;*._ - . �..:i s
� - �''� ;
� , � �, 'T: � t :':'. - - �,
_ � ���.'�`�°�::' ..�
-- .:� --��, _._. ..�- , �
� � - _ f. _�;:-
': -" ���'w� �:r��+- :- �;v�-".
7 F ..r-
..► L�„} y 'ti• � F,
i¢i; ;� .�.. �:���'����?i 3}�, .�s ,��'. �
1� �. �� ;-
�. �� _ -�°`�;�w�-- _
"Intercontinental Hotel Group (from the marketing material to developers)
- �, IHG will tailor project support to each owner and each project.
' ;� �; � Whether owners are interested in a new build, conversion, adaptive
, �.�s`� ' � - reuse, mixed-use, or dual-branded property, IHG can help.
� ' We'll work with you to develop a fast and efficient process that
matches our experience in the global market with the personal vision
you have for your hotel."
The city of Ukiah does have minimal design standards.This is the second time the applicant has
submitted a proposal for the same 52 room, 53,000 square foot 4 story building. After very clear
feedback from the Design Review Board,the applicant has ignored both the Airport Master Plan and the
suggestions offered by the DRB.
The proposed 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
����-�
+ , y, .
��_ _� �
� .,�
. � - �� �: -
•' � .,� • � �� .
_ � .�._, ;j�s:A�f��."�'�i x
`�' ' ' ,�t�+s-
� �+� '�V ' �,�d �� _g s �.
v ���f.`� -t ' ' f�F'„� +i+r,��,
�" __ : �t+�:. , ��'°
� '� ! . '. 1 t :� �i���r �
S' — � �'. '� '..� `�y�.. ��
�_;� ��`• i � f j
'j �. P�� •�
..?� �R �� i ��
, •y '�'. '� y���;
- =�'� ��~4-��' �
�� �� f ,
:$,; ��.� ►
::t, i� ,, ��
_ ��:"•.� �
"�. �=
'� ` 4 'r� �•f r ��f ;
. �;= .��- � _
_ ��, �.� �..f � ;�=��,,����. �
rr.:� ::�:�� ,. r 2
'` "iy ��y � •. ��".�r'.
:a� s � � �. �'++3�';;
; `� � YZ T.�� �T � vT t��) iR�.f...:..iJ R�~`,\
� -- � ... . ... .. � �L.
�! '� /� ' Y �. �� �` ���
� � 2A
:- r �F ..:i�
:-� • � i��� �'� �r.. . �1 �5�11
���A�;�_ 1� ti .;��� �� �:� �1�
¢�,. �•..R,r,'�-� .� �•r:, ��
�'�a, ��1 f�� '�� i
�, - Y�
��... �.•�:
� -'.��� �4�T`., ..�
1 � '' �� — �
'�Y - .. .�' �. _
v � � �
� . :yi,F{ �I �' .
� �� - ''.� ,aerc _.
��� �
• ��. �.
�� � '.��
�-' _ � '��tl����
,r r
■ ��6F�-:.r l"
i .�. -�� �;
�!� �� � �► _�.
� : .- �
� -s .� . �. �
�"�dy�A�'�• � ,}
�� ��
r��' r..�rr. ;. "'i .� .•a' �..r'�'�
M.l�'•,#.��� �x-- � il;T� i ''
f%J�f �� � . :'i vw�� �!L
,�' �:���r�� �� •.1i r'' • . I, �.
.�?r ��� �` � {i�-
♦,�'�M��� � �r�'�.
,R. _ �.
I ' �'�I :7
:.. --�
. � �
� '
� ,
o -- "`
�u � � -
-- � K'� o: � ti
,- . . �:. � �_ ,t� �7 �■
�� � -
a
� � _
� ' 1�
d . -
• Q-
� _ Y
_ a
_ � ■ I 1
� -. � � �
�� , � ' '
__ � «' �� �� n -
_ .�....
- �= �:-�. � . , _ . , .� -.
:_ _ � .. : .
- ��� � y �
. .�.�.,
� . _
- �
__ � F.
. � __ _"''� � " ' 1���' �.}•.��
r��i . �.�1 � , l
f r
_ - � �- ��; �� # r
, -.��• .. 1.... ►�A __
] � ` � . Ya�� :il�t�*'� �4�r` �►* ' v�
3 Y � � �5��:
` O •NHwr�t 'Q"' _ �. �:����
C� '�� ►
_ w ` f = �
- �c -
_ � _
] r
__' X � � r �
'L: Y .
iN �•� �
r. � y
-_- T� "� VJ
(o
G
� �
... � �' �
1 '
' . ' W_.�lV__� _���«�...��r.�z���
. .r� � ,R...J -_.- ..�.- .�__ --_ _ . . '. ~�x � \
. . ••� •ria. i, � • - -.-. . i -..- •�•�
- • . _ . . . .-' _ ' '
'' • -.. . .�.. • . '
.. -. � . . . _ .�- ..-... � . . �
J= y j. � . ` -+�w�.-�r�.�.w��...a�r..+ - .
, � �'�'J. •����` 7 •;L� . . . _, ... .... -
- .-� F..* �.'�y-; ..., .. . - .
-, . �, '��%:.��'.
- • f��� -_
_ -� _ � '�
;; _ �-� .� ,.��ti . . � . �
_ _ - , :-�.__, ._ =-- . -' ' -- _
r-. - ��� •sr � S��.y .
���1� �: ,�`
- .�_ �
. - x - - ' -
_ o :,�� .. �'
� •C'. Y
.. � }.
C:
• -- .� - . . �c�- � .-� ..r"Jii y��� . . Y:
a ;i. , ..
� . � 11'r�."I�"- . ._.- ._ .. - . ..
_ y .
� •
� - . "y�-.qoK'.=T' /� x o
. . T . . . . .� - � �� �l^��
G
'" _ . • . . �._ ..a " . "__ _. __ ' "" V1 �
O � 0 O � � O � 04 � 0 � m rn �
n oo v v+�a m m x ��o r0 z �v z m 3 v �n oo x w r0 � � rn
C 3 d N n d m � o d C O N n a m °i. 3 m � m C 1 V
o a; 'v� 3 a o, d � o, � < ''c° a 1 N 9 O. d c � �
3 '^ d m a�+3 ,o v � N x m � a.'�3 v N T � 9 `� x m < rn �
� � : » 7 n n > > � � � n .d. � ^ �3 9 ^ � � � r � V V 1
�. gS r3o o � � 3+ 3i �n �p � Z 9;� � 3+ A o �+ �n c � O �
`�° n. g.� 'N° a a c v � H m a N °. a f � a, .o _ m -p _' �
-o v o d v� r'o `�i'c' � -o O d " � A �c' � � O
� 7 3 o v s ? s "� N = M s T o � : o � m
(D '^ x fD OI N S W A N � d X� � S W A � � O
d „ � S N N d S '"` A N fD
x � r � X r �
� � � m � `° �
O R � R O ~
�
A � A , �
� � � � �
N N �
C
�
m Z
� ' � p �� O
� � � ��
m � � �-� �--3 : < � .
x �
� i '�O
1
r„ � .� _. ; � � € �
< . ,
�
� �
� � I "W' � � ; �
� °
m
m
� � i �
� i � � � j
� o �, �
�
�� -� � I �� � � o
o .
�- � � 3C� � �
e_� �.. � �. : ' �.
, � ;
o � � � °
IS I
O `
�;;. '. 1 ��
_ .�., r� � �
� • x� �� •
, -
�_i ��-. 1� i r
; ;�
�
�-� � �Is �.; �
�: s �- I� i � �
, �:
�
�-; � ?�� `
C i 1 I� '
� ' f
i
, ,!
� . ] � , .
�- , � , �
;
�
!� ; � -� � � 4 -
� , -; •�
�
�,
`" � — m c.r�
� ;
-� •� � � �
� I � �
O ' �, ! � v '
v�i - � '] -. �
s q_ + O
I
4 � O
'� � _�
�1 .J �
rr �
r� � :� �; ��� �
_ <
i µ ��� �
� � ��
.,�� � , �� � 1
� � �� :
� a � ' .
� � �.
,;�. � I
�� � � '
n , .
.�� �� +
': � a ■��i.-
i
..�: � I _ I
`. ( I
� �1 � f �i� � �
� i� i
��
� �
�
� I i
�
� � .
� `
• '
':i s � �
i`
I ,
x �
�� � i .
� 1
. ,
���. A,°p � � � Pi °� £ vx �.c � a `° �
F' " � P.'fl 7 n �. �'� � 7 w �b, �o�
� '� � G ,� � w -,
?� � m�a. � ?. 7 � o, °a p K a, ��c
�n �� � �o � o' �� r° � `° m o p:n
o �
g p; ,� � x c �. a ��, o g o •
�ic fD ^ v � vai a.m � v�,� � � ~ �
� a
� � m 5.� °o w e °' c m � � � �
m � � � � n �o �• p, a � C. �
x � u, m w � c � � o � � � �
b � W � � ,Y � � t0 � p � 7 �•
F+ �u�. '�^ w S �c p`T ia o ? �c �' m
� � � �:� C7 p.
~ 7-^ rp-+
ta • �
� �