HomeMy WebLinkAbout02282019 - Packet CITY OF UKIAH
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AGENDA
Civic Center Annex Conference Room #5
411 W Clay
Ukiah, CA 95482
Thursday, February 28, 2019
3:00 p.m.
The Design Review Board serves as an advisory body to City staff, Zoning Administrator,
Planning Commission and City Council to make site design recommendations consistent with the
C L�MAJ Q�I-Ml���14-I�F�vW C�I-ML��RDIID�RI�M�L1PQ�1 I
review proposed site development permit applications, planned development applications and
precise development plans, and make recommendations concerning architecture, site design
layout, landscaping, parking, signage, exterior lighting, and other aspects of urban design to City
staff, Zoning Administrator, Planning Commission and City Council as appropriate.
The Design Review Board encourages applicants and/or their representatives to be available at
the meeting to answer questions so that no agenda item need be deferred to a later date due to
a lack of pertinent information.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. CORRESPONDENCE
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the January 24, 2019 meeting.
5. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
The City of Ukiah Design Review Board 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. Review and discussion of development projects within the Downtown area.
7. MATTERS FROM THE BOARD
8. MATTERS FROM STAFF
9. ADJOURNMENT
ADA ACCOMODATION: If you plan on attending the public hearing and need a special
accommodation because of a sensory or mobility impairment/disability, or have a need for an
interpreter, please call Cathy Elawadly at the City of Ukiah at (707)463-6752 to arrange for those
accommodations to be made.
Page 1 of 1
CITY OF UKIAH
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
Civic Center Annex Conference Room #5
411 W. Clay
Ukiah, CA 95482
January 24, 2019
3:00 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Liden called the Design Review Board meeting to order at 3:03 p.m. in Conference
Room #5, Civic Center Annex, 411 W. Clay, Ukiah, California.
Chair Tom Liden presiding.
2. ROLL CALL Present: Member Nicholson, Hawkes, Morrow, and Chair
Liden
Absent: Member Hise
Staff Present: Michelle Irace, Planning Manager
Alicia Tlelo, Assistant Planner
Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
Others present: Jesus Vega
Robert Palafox
Tina Warf
3. CORRESPONDENCE
None was received.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Minutes from the September 27, 2018 meeting are available for review and approval.
Motion/Second Hawkes/Nicholson to approve September 27, 2018 minutes, as
submitted. Motion carried by an all AYE voice vote with Member Morrow abstaining and
Member Hise absent.
5. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
No comments were received.
6. NEW BUSINESS
a. Request for review and recommendation to the Planning Commission regarding an
application for a Major Use Permit/Site Development Permit for construction and
RSI��C,lRI�X1�F�f'���I-�'IE�M�M/�ll F�D�WM/CCG/u(9�7�❑�d �1�IC6�A�i-�Q�
170 Garrett Drive. (APNs 001-388-13 & 14); File No. 18-4083.
Presenter: Planning Manager Michelle Irace.
Public Hearing Opened: 3:15 p.m.
Page 1 of 2
Minutes of the Design Review Board, January 24, 2019 Continued:
Public Comment: Robert Palafox, Jesus Vega, Tina Warf.
Public Hearing Closed: 3:46 p.m.
DRB Recommendations:
• Eliminate one parking space located in the southeast corner at Garrett Drive and N.
State Street to provide for landscaping.
• Tone down red trim DQGD(�ZmRI�D�DI�F�II�RC�L�R�'.Uon the buildings. In terms
of design accentuate the horizontal and vertical and make the color scheme more
harmonious.
• Follow-through with the design of the existing fencing for the west side of the property.
Motion/Second Nicholson/Hawkes to recommend Planning Commission approve a Major
Use Permit/Site Development Permit for construction and operation of an automotive
services business at 1106 N. State Street and 170 Garrett Drive with the recommendations
made by the DRB, as referenced above. Motion carried by an all AYE voice vote of the
members above with Member Hise absent.
7. MATTERS FROM THE BOARD
8. MATTERS FROM STAFF
9. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 3:55 p.m.
Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
Page 2 of 2
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6A
DATE: Februarv 28, 2019
Department of Community Development
Planning Services Division
�'����� ����� 300 Seminary Ave.
Ukiah, CA 95482
planning@cityofukiah.com
STAFF REPORT
TO: Design Review Board
DATE: February 28, 2019
FROM: Craig Schlatter, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Review and discussion of development projects within the Downtown area.
Background
,C�C❑C❑��R-KFLC�C-RS�Design Guidelines for Commercial Projects Located Outside the
Downtown Design District�H(�/�MiWCC�ID�N�CF�RP P F�&1D��1�RF� L1�P�LC1�
the Downtown Design District. On June 27, 2007 the Planning Commission adopted two Project
Review Checklists; one for commercial development outside of the Downtown Design District, as
well as a one for projects within the Downtown Design District. These checklists were intended to
assist developers, staff, policy boards and the public in determining project consistency with the
downtown design guidelines adopted by City Council.
At the September 19, 2018 DRB meeting, staff provided a refresher and interactive discussion of
3❑M�W C�d4i�M�RI�RP P F�LD�19�1`b'F1A/��PoIQ� dV�fl��i�RZ 41�L C�i M�W Q�LV1AI�I�DQG❑
planned on doing the same for the Design Guidelines for Commercial Projects Located Within the
Downtown Design District at a future meeting. There was also discussion of implementing use of
the Project Review Checklists, which have not generally been used in recent years.
Discussion
Regarding design guidelines for projects within the downtown area, on October 3, 2012, the City
Council adopted Ordinance No. 1139 to establish the Downtown Zoning Code (DZC). Upon
further research, staff found that one intent of the DZC was to replace the Downtown Design
Guidelines that were adopted in 2001. Section 9225 through 9230 of the DZC provides site and
building development standards, architectural standards, landscaping requirements, etc. for
development projects. Tables 9 through 12 summarize these sections of the DZC and have been
included as Attachment 1. The complete DZC can be found online in Article 18 of Chapter 2 of
the Zoning Code https://www.codepublishinp.com/CA/Ukiah//. Staff would like to discuss the
relationship between the Downtown Design Guidelines and the DZC and determine how design
of projects in the downtown area should be reviewed.
In addition, staff has located the checklists (see Attachment 2) and would like to discuss
establishing a procedure for using the checklists and receive input from the DRB on potentially
updating the checklists.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6A
DATE: Februarv 28, 2019
Department of Community Development
Planning Services Division
�'����� ����� 300 Seminary Ave.
Ukiah, CA 95482
planning@cityofukiah.com
Attachments
1- Downtown Zoning Code Table 9 (Development Standards), Table 10 (Landscaping
Standards), Table 11 (Frontage types and Storefront Standards) and Table 12
(Architectural Elements and Materials).
2- Downtown Design Guidelines Checklist & PC Staff Report, June 27, 2007
6.' P.� �V � � � ( �' R
ATTACHMENT 1
� �
see Site Screening below W
�
$' �►' � �
�
�
� � �
�'
�
� � �
�
�
�
,� � (
6.' P.� �V � � � ( �' R
W �'
see Site Screening below
:�
� �' � �'
�
� � � �
�'
�/
$� �' 6�/ �'
�'
�
� �' �'
�'
�' � �/ �'
�'
�'�
� Hi' Q �'
�
�'
�
�F' �' Q �
�'
� �' � 9�'
� �
�1' �Y � �9�'
�' @0' {g�'
�'
S�
,� � (
6.' P.� �V � � � ( mlfl R
� �
See Design Appendix
�' �B�' �' �8/ C
� �'
9D�? SBqD6B�D� � �8/ C
�6{f DF�
D{d? �3�W B� �8/ C
�)�R
�
,�If�K � c
ATTACHEMNT 2
f7EM NO. 11(A)
�� - � � DATE: June 27, 2007
MEMORANDUM �
TO: Planning Commission
�ROM: Pamela Tawnsend, Senior Planner
DATE: June 27, 2007
SUBJECT: Rerriew Commercial De�elopment Design Guidelines Checklists
SUMMARY: T#�e Commercial Development Design Guidelines Checklist is provided to
the Planning Commiss�on for its final review based on:
■ Modifications to reflect Commission comments on March 14 and 28, 2Q07, such
as a�oidi�g qualitative terms, integrating criteria consistent with the Sacrame�to
Walkab[e-Bikeable Communities Projec# Checklist, and requesting appficants to
state �ow the project enhanc�s the City.
■ Design Review Board review of#he Checklis#as pertams to commercial property
in ti�e Downtown area. On June 7, the Board commented that whi[e the
Checklist might involve more work on the part of the applican#s, its use will
require applicants to actively cansider the issues presented in #he Guideli�es.
■ Staff use of the Checklist, resulting in the creation of separate documents for the
DowRtown and tF�e areas outside t�e Downtow�, as well as addit+on of a 'No'
column. Staff found the Checklist to be useful in identifying design issues for
applicants durmg pre-application review, shortcutting the need to write a Iengthy
analysis.
Staff intends to pro�ide the Checklist to a�plicar�ts and use the Checkiist during project
re�iew, modifying the Checklist as use may indicate.
RECOMMENDATION: Accept the modified Commercial Developmenf Design
Guidelines Checklist.
� �'�
. �
City of Ukiah - Commercial Deve[opment Design Guidelines
� Projec� Review Checklist
COMMERClAL PROJECTS WITHIN DOWNTOWN DESlGN DISTRiCT
The followir�g Checklist is in#ended to assist developers, staff, policy boards and the �ublic in
determinir�g project consistency with the Commercial Development Design Guidelines for the
Downtown Design District. Piease refer to t�e Guidelines for the full te�and illustrations, as the
Checklist does not supersede or substitute for tF�e Guidelines. The informatian ir� parentheses
provides examples of ways ta achieve the desired effects, recognizing that it is impossible to
reduce the art and practice of desigr� into a checklist of indi�idual e�ements.
"Architects, project designers and applicants are expected ta malce a strong and sincere effort to
comp[y with the G�idelines and contribute to the improvement of the City's physical image.
Pr�aject applicants, with #he assistance of their architect and building designe�s, are expected to
put forth a convi�cing and creati�e effort when planning development and designing b�iEdings."
(Guidelines, page 1).
Discussion of Desi n Elements: Applican#s are requested to disc�ss the following issues
in their project application submittal.
1. Haw does the project design contribute to the improvement of the City's physica! image?
How does the project exhibit creativity?
2. What architectural s#yle{s}/period is represented by the project design, if any?
3. After completing the checklist below, explain how the �roject complies with the various
factors below.
4. Are any af the criteria befow r�ot met? If so, why nat?
COMMERCIAL PROJECTS WITHIN DOWNTOWN DESIGN DISTRICTYes-
Yes No NIA consistent; No-Not consistent or more infarmation needed; NIA-not applicable
Site features {p. 6)
❑ ❑ ❑ Site design is compatible with the natural environrnent, and incor�orates the
majar existing features {frees, landscaping, cify creeks, riparian habifat, !oi shape, size,
relationship to surrounding area).
Coordination (p. 6)
❑ ❑ ❑ Facilities {driveways,parking,pedestrian plazas, walkways) are shared wit� adjacent
properties (maximize useable area;increase pedestrian feafures and landscaping;
improve design), .
p ❑ p Uses are functionally campatible (oftices near residenrial, refail wifh office or housing
above ar 6ehind, street level businesses emphasize walk-in fra�c:retail, restaurants,
� personal services).
2
COMMERCIA� PROJECTS WITHiN DOWNT�WN DESIGN DISTRICTYes-
� Yes No NIA �onsisEent; No-Not cansisfent or more information needed; NIA-not applicable
Setbacks (p. 6)
❑ ❑ ❑ Setback are compatible with the character of adjacent frontages and the block.
❑ ❑ ❑ Setbacks re#lect property uses; vary setbacks to enhance pedestrian scale and
i�terest (reduced sefbacks enhance pedestrian views af store window displays;
rncreased sefbacks accommodate sidewalks, entries, courtyards, outdoor cafes}.
Pedestrian access (p. 6, 1�[, 14, 16}
p ❑ ❑ Pedestrian frier�dly design an� arientation is emphasized.
❑ D ❑ Facilities are integrated into and compatible with architectura� quality of the site
and area.
❑ ❑ ❑ Pedestrian spaces are conveniently located, well-marked, safe and lighted
(pedestrian spaces visible for safety, louv leve!lighting adequafe for security accenfed to
site design, spaces shaded from sun and elements, especially in parking lots).
❑ ❑ ❑ Pedestrian elements are attractive and functionai, to increase interest in walking
and gathering in outcfoor spaCes (landscaping, outdoor cafes, benches, seafing,
kiosks, displays, newsstands}.
p p � Walkways to p�rkirlg are funCtlonal ar�d safe (walkways link parking to building
enfrances and ofher walkways;design features demark or separafe walkways from traffic:
fe�cfured or raised surfaces, grade variafions, landscaped berms, low walls).
Parking lots (p. 6, �6)
❑ ❑ ❑ Decrease visual �rominence an� reduce heat island effect (Iocate beh,nd burldings,
divide info smaller lofs, avoid lar�e un6roken expanses of paving;emphasize screening,
shading, landscaping).
❑ ❑ ❑ Adequate directional signage for vehicles and pedestrians.
❑ ❑ ❑ Bicycle parking cEose to building entries for security; covered if possible,
Landscaping (p. 6, 16-'!7)
❑ ❑ ❑ Scale and nature of landsca�e materials is appropriate to, compfements, and
accents t�e site, building design and dfinensions (color accents, annua!planfrngs,
windou�bQx planfings on overhead prajections, landscaping does nof abscure walkways
or visua!carridors).
❑ ❑ ❑ 20% of grass lo#area landscaped 150% live plantings. (Planrs are oftype, spacing
and sizing to reach maturity within reasonable fime. Hardy, droughf foleranf, Iow
mainfenance species adapted to Ukiah climate are emphasized,•parking lofs trees also
wifhsfand heat,pollufants. Deciduous trees on soufh and west. Groundcover compatible
with trees. Streef frees selecfed from Ukiah Master Tree Lisf/planfings per Standard
Planning Detai!required on private lot or public righf of way.}
❑ ❑ ❑ Parking areas with 12 or more stalls: 1 tree per 4 stalfs, continuous linear strips
minimum 5 feet wide; 50% sf�ading within 9 Q years; automatic irrigation systems
required.
Signs (p. 12-13)
❑ ❑ ❑ Signs are compatible with architectural character of buildings (historic period, style,
locafion, size, con�guration, materials, color-harmonize wrfh desrgn, do not obscure
architecfural feafures).
❑ ❑ ❑ Sign program minimizes visual clutter (reduce large and multiple signs,sign area is
� minimum necessary to idenfify business, windorv signs not exceeding 25% of window
� ,�' area, sandwich boar+als have subdued color/minimal co Aocafed outside ROW,size of
3
COMMERCIAL PROJECTS W[THlN DOWNTOWN DESIGN DISTRICTYes-
� ' consistent; No-Not consistent or mare information neec[ed; NIA-not applicable
� ' Yes No NIA
signs on converted residential buildings minimized, signs over public righf of way:
minimum 8 feef above grade}.
� � � Preferred cammercial sign types: Painted on band above windaws on stuccoed
,burlding, painted window signs, narrow/flat signs hung from stafronary canopies,
flat signs flush-mounted on building fronfs, projecting signs attached to,building
front, expased neon tube signs integrated info building design, srgns on awnings.
Defached freestanding signs for strucfures on sidewalk line nof allowed.
Lighting (p. 14-16)
❑ ❑ ❑ Lighting harmonizes with site, building design, architecture and lar�dscaping
{lightirrg form, function, character, �xfure styles, design and placement;lighfing does not
interfere wifh pedestrian movemenf).
❑ ❑ ❑ Lighting minimizes effects on adjacent properties, a�to and pedestrian
movement, and night-time sky (downcast and shfelded, groundRowlevel, louvintensify,
nonglare).
Visual appearance {p. 6-7)
❑ ❑ ❑ Buildings are visually cohesEve, compatible and complementary (sca�e,proportio�,
desrgn, sfyle, heighfs, mass,setbacks).
❑ ❑ ❑ Buildings exhibit v�riety and disti�tctiveness (but avoid overly obrrusrve or overly
monofonous designs, or sfrong contrast wilh adjacent buildings).
❑ ❑ ❑ Buildings exf�ibit high quality design and construction, with functional design
solutions.
❑ ❑ ❑ Site and bufldings are visually attractive from Reighboring properties, traffic and
corridors, artd pubEic spaces (service areas and devices screened, infegrafed and
compafible with site features;above cr'rteria is applied fo areas visible to public view;rear
and side views are visually interesfing, coordinafed and we!!-mainfained).
� ❑ ❑ Building exteriors compatible witt� surrounding properties (comparible or6etter
quality, compatible wifh natura!maferials, coordinated 6ut nof fhe same as s�rrounding
properties, avoid more than one vivid or brighf color per building, avoid concrete block on
visi6le exterror walls:if used fhen creafive design and surface treafinenfs required).
Reconstruction, repair, alterations {p. 7)
❑ ❑ p Preserve original character of site (use original materials present on the sife, avord
damage to brick surfaces or match origina!character if brrck musf be replaced,preserve
original character of residential srfe if converted fo commercia!use).
❑ ❑ ❑ Protect historical structures and sites �NOte'�; indicate applicabi[ity of State Histofic
Building Code, address pre-997'2 canstruction and unreinfa�ced masonry issues.
Roofs and rooflines (p. 8}
❑ ❑ ❑ Roofs and roaflines visuafly compati�le wit� building design and sUrrounding
area (roof and rooflines campatibility; diverse parapef wa11 shapes, cons,stent
historical roof forms and decoratians, neutral roof colors;form, color and teacfure are
infegra!part of 6uilding design; rooftop apparatus screened}.
Facad�s and entryways (p. 8- 11}
❑ ❑ ❑ Facades are varied and articulated (cornice lines, parapets, eaves, clofh
' awnings, ,balconies, signs, entry insets, trellis�s, overhangs, planfer boxes, 3-
O dimensronal articulafion;avoid Iong, straight facades without change in planes or
openings, maximize windows along commercraf fronfage;building entryways
4
COMMERCIAL PR4JECTS WITHIN DOWNTOWN DESIGN DISTR[CTYes-
� Yes No NIA cansistent; No-Not consistent or more information needed; NIA-not appllcable
have strong architectural defrnition�
❑ ❑ ❑ Facade impro�ements are compatib[e with historicaf background.
� � � 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 mainter�ance.
Note 1: Architectural and Historical Resources In�entory Report, Ukiah Califomia 1984-1985--available at City of
Ukiah; aiso documents at Held-Poage Memoriaf Home and Library,603 W.Perkins St
Other Considerations
A variety of site and building design issues have �ncreased in importance to the public and
policy boards since the Guidelines were written in the earlylmid 1990s. Some of those are
expressed �elaw. The Checklist wifl be modified from time to#ime.
Yes No NIA OTHER CONSIDERAT[ONS
Walkab�e—bikeable communities
❑ ❑ ❑ The projec# provides connections far walkers and bicyclists to the surrounding
cpmmunity (provides walking/hlking facilities on the site, connects!o nearly
walking/6iking facili�ies,provides shortcuts for walkers/bikers,project is located within �/4-
912 of other places to walk).
❑ ❑ ❑ Sidewalks provide are con�enient and safe access (sidewalks suflrciently wide,
wifhouf obstruction;curbs, shade, lighfrng provided;buffers befween walkers and tra�c
provided;safe and direct street crossings for walkers}.
❑ p ❑ Entrances pro�ide con�enient access {entrances adjacent to sfreef, minimal set6ack,
rautes and accessways are well marked, sidewalks provided uninterrupted access to
enfrances, safe bike parking is locafed close fo enfrances).
Gree� building {incorporating green building efements)�
❑ ❑ ❑ Sustai�able site
❑ ❑ ❑ Water efficie�cy
❑ ❑ ❑ Energy
❑ ❑ ❑ Materials and resources
� � � Indoor environmental quality
Visitability and universal des[gn (the site and its elements are accessible fa people
❑ p p af differing stages, ages and circumsfances of life:accessible primary and irrferior
enfrance and rou#es, accessible kitchen and bafh space and devices, for dwellings-
accessible 6edroom, common room, and devrcesJ.
'`See Green Building Council LEED and othEr g�idelines for detailed measures:
htto:llwww.us�bc.or�IDisplayPaqe.aspx?Cateaoryl D=19
http:llwww.n rd c.orglb uild inggreenlstrateg ies
�
City of Ukiah - Commerc�al Deveiopment Design Guidelines
'�� . Project Review Checktist
COMMERCIAL PROJECTS OUTSIDE DOWNTOWN DESIGN DISTRiCT
The following C�ecklist is intended to assist�e�elopers, staff, palicy boards and the public in
determining �roject consistency with the Commercial Developmenf Design Guidelines. Please
refer ta the Guidelines f�r the full text and illustratians, as the Checklist does not supersede or
substitute for the Guidelines. The information in parentheses provides examples of ways to
achieve the desired effects, recognEzing that it is impossible to reduce the art and practice of
design inta a checklist o#individual elements.
"Architects, project designers and applicants are expected to make a strong and sincere effort to
comply wit� the Guidelines and contribute to the improvement of t�e City's physical image.
Project applicants, with the assistance of their architect an� b�ilding designees, are expected #o
put forth a can�incing and creative effor�when plann�ng de�elopment and desig�ing buildings."
{Guidelines, page 1). '
Discussion of Desipn Etements: Applicar�ts are requested ta discuss the following �ssues
ir� #heir project application submittal.
1. How daes the project design cantribute to th� irr�provement of the City's physical image?
How does the prolect exhibit creativi�y?
2. What architectural style{s}/period is represented by the project desEgn, if any?
3. After completing #�e 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?
COiVIMERCIAL PROJECTS OUTSIDE DOWNTOWN DESIGN DISTRICT
Yes No NIA Yes-consistent; Na-Not consistent or more information needed; N1A-not appficable
Si#e features (p. 19)
❑ ❑ ❑ Site design is compatible with the natural environment, and incorporates the
majpr existing features (frees, landscaping, city creeks, riparian habifat, Iot shape, size,
relatianship to surrounding area).
Coordination {p.20 }
❑ ❑ ❑ Facilities are shared and coordinated witF� adjacent properties.
❑ ❑ ❑ Setbacfcs 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, desi�n and architecture.
� ❑ ❑ ❑ Pedestria� elements are attractive and functio�al (walkways I,nk parking fo building
,. . .
6
��
COMMERCiAL PROJECTS OUTSIDE DOWNTOWN DESIGN DISTRICT
Yes No NIA Yes-consistent; No-Not consistent or more information needed; N!A-not applicable
entrances and other walkways;planters, street furniture, outdoor seating,pedesfrian
oriented signs, Iow leve!lighfing provided).
� � � Parking areas with 12 or more sta[Is: defined sidewalk or marked pedestrian
facilities in landscaped areas or se�arated from traffic lanes required.
Parking lots (P. 22 }
❑ ❑ ❑ Decrease�isual �rominence and reduce heat island effect (locate behind bu;ldings,
divide inta smallerlofs, avoid large unbroken expanses of paving;emphasize screening,
shadin , landsca in .
Landscaping (p.22 )
❑ ❑ ❑ Scale and nature of fandscape materials is appropriate to the site and structures.
❑ ❑ ❑ 20°/4 of grass lot area [andscaped 150°/a live piantings; [andscape redevelopment
or reuse projects to extent feasible (Plants are of fype, spacing and sizing fo reach
mafurify within reasonable time. Hardy, drought tolerarrt, low mainfenance species
adapfed fo Ukiah climafe are emphasized,parking lots frees also withstand heaf,
pollutanfs. Decid�ous trees used on soufh and wesf. Automatic irrigation required for
new commercia!developmenf. Streel trees selected from Ukiah Master Tree Lisf/
planfings per Standard Planning Defai!reguired on private Iot or public righf of way.}
❑ ❑ ❑ Parking areas with 92 or more stalRs: 1 tree per 4 stalls within continuous linear
strips. Peri�neter plantir�g strips use trees and shrubs. Focus on deciduous trees
achieving 50% shading within 10 years. �
❑ ❑ ❑ Parking lots generafly: Perimeter plan#ing strips, Street trees selected from Ukiah
, Master Tree List required.
Signs {p. 21}
❑ ❑ ❑ Signs are compatible with architectu�al character of buildings (signage does not
dominafe sife, uses compati6le colors and mat�rial, lighting is resfrained and harmanious,
sandwich boards are creafive/subdued color/minima!copy).
Lighting {p. 20}
❑ ❑ ❑ Lighting harmonizes with site, building design, architecture and landscaping
(lighting form, funcfiorr, characfer, frxture sfyles, desrgn and placemenf;lighfing does not
interfere with pedestrian movemenf).
Energy conservation {p. 2'I)
❑ ❑ p Active and passive solar and other renewable energy design and de�ices are
used (building orientafion, landscaping, lightrng, heating and cooling,photovolfaic
sysfem-ready or installed).
❑ ❑ ❑ Devices are unobtrusi�e and complement design (solarpanels flush w;th roo�.
Visual appearaRce (p. 20}
❑ ❑ p Buildings are visually cohesive, compatible and complementary {sca►e,proportion,
design, sfyle, heighfs, mass, setbacks).
❑ ❑ ❑ Buildings exhibit variety and distinctiveness (but avoid overly obtrusive or overly
monotonous designs, or sfrong contrast wifh adjacenf buildings, creative use of natural
and recycled materials;metal discouraged unless creative and consisfent with
GUideflnes}
� � � Variety of architectura!features encouraged tied to com�rehensive design theme
.r
(arches, raised parapefs, comices, eaves, windows, balconies, entry insets, roof angles
�.�r
7
�� �
C4MMERCiAL PROJECTS OUTSIDE DOWNTOWN DESIGN DISTRICT
. . Yes No N!A Yes-consistent; No-Not consistent ar more information needed; NIA-not applicable
and pitches, wall relief features}.
� � � Building exteriors compati�le with surroUnding properties (compatib�e materials,
colors, quality, coordinafed but nof the same as surrounding properlies, avoid strong or
vivid calors unless they fit within local context, concrefe blocWexposed concrefe on visible
wa!!s frnished in aesthetic manner).
� � � Visible�ences compatibfe with project and visually attractive (compatible colors,
maferials, styles;wire fences, high barriers and use for advertising discouraged).
� � � Site and buildings are visually attractive from neighbor€ng properties, #raffic and
Corridors, ar�d public spaces (service areas and devices screened, infegrafed and
compafible with sife feafures;comman ma►lboxes architecturally consisient and locafed
close fo building;above criteria is applied to areas visible fo public view;rear and side
vTews are visually inferesfing, coordinafed and well-maintained).
Maintenance {p. 22 ) �
❑ ❑ ❑ Demonstrate consideration of site and building maintenance.
Other Considerations
A variety of site and building design issues have increased in impartance to the public and
policy�aards since the Guidelines were written in the earlylmid 1990s. Some of those are
expressed below. The Checklist will �e modified fram time to time.
Yes No NIA OTHER CONSIDERATiONS
Wallcable—bikeable communities
❑ ❑ ❑ The �roject provides connections for walkers and bicyclists to the surrounding
comm�nity (provides walking/biking facilitres on the site, connects fo nearly
walking/biking facilitres,provides shortcuts for walkers/bikers,project is located within 9/4-
1/2 of other places fo walk}.
❑ ❑ ❑ Sidewalks provide are convenient a�d safe access (sidewalks sufficienfly wide,
wrthouf obsfrucfion;curbs, shade, lighting provided;buffers befween walkers and fraffrc
provrded;safe and direcf sfreef crossings for walkers).
❑ ❑ ❑ Entrances provide conv�nient access (enfrances adjacenf ta streef, minimal setback,
routes and accessuvays are wel!marked, sidewalks provided uninferrupted access fo
entrances, safe 6ike parking is located close to entrances).
Green building (incorporating green b�ilding efements}*
❑ ❑ ❑ Sustainable sitE
❑ ❑ ❑ Water efficiency
❑ ❑ ❑ Energy
❑ ❑ ❑ Materiafs and resources
� � � Indoor environmental qua6ity .
Visitability and un�versal design (the site and its elemenis are accessible fo peop�e
p p p at differing stages, ages and circumstances of life:accessible primary and interior
entrance and routes, accessible kifchen and bafh space a�d devices, for dwe!lings-
accessible 6edroom, common room, and devices}.
+See Green Building Councif LEED and other guidelines for detaiied measures:
h�tq:llwww.usqbc.orglDisplavPa�ae.as�x?Cate�orvlD=19 * http:llwww.nrdc.orglbuildinggreenlstrategies
8