Loading...
08-05-2020 DRC MinutesAPPROVED BY THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITEE ON AUGUST 19, 2020 Page 1 of 7 FINAL MINUTES CITY OF ORANGE August 5, 2020 DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE 5:30 p.m. STAFF PRESENT VIA GO MEETING TELECONFERENCE: Anna Pehoushek, Assistant Community Development Director Marissa Moshier, Historic Preservation Planner Robert Garcia, Senior Planner Monique Schwartz, Associate Planner Jessica Wang, Administrative Specialist Simonne Fannin, Recording Secretary REGULAR SESSION 1. OPENING: 1.1 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Skorpanich called the meeting to order at 5:32 p.m. 1.2 FLAG SALUTE: Committee Member McDermott led the flag salute. 1.3 ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Committee Members McDermott, McCormack, Skorpanich, Fox and Imboden. 1.4 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Opportunity for members of the public to address the Design Review Committee (DRC) on matters not listed on the Agenda. There were no speakers. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR: 2.1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: July 15, 2020 2.2 DESIGN REVIEW NO. 4950-19 – BLUELEVEN SIGNAGE  A proposal to install two wall signs on a non-contributing building in the Plaza Historic District.  10 Plaza Square, Plaza Historic District  Staff Contact: Marissa Moshier, (714) 744-7243, mmoshier@cityoforange.org  DRC Action: Final Determination DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES August 5, 2020 Page 2 of 7 A motion was made to approve the consent calendar as submitted. MOTION: McDermott SECOND: Imboden AYES: McCormack, Skorpanich, McDermott, Imboden, and Fox NOES: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION CARRIED 3. AGENDA ITEMS: Continued Items: 3.1 DESIGN REVIEW NO. 4898-17 – SHELL STATION AND CAR WASH  A proposal to refurbish an existing full service gas station, including the conversion of existing service bays to convenience store area, expansion of the convenience store building, sale of beer and wine for off-site consumption, construction and operation of a new 2,600 sq. ft. drive-through automatic car wash building, and related site improvements. The Design Review Committee continued the proposal on May 15, and November 6, 2019, and June 3, 2020.  2640-2658 N. Santiago Boulevard  Staff Contact: Monique Schwartz, (714) 744-7224, mschwartz@cityoforange.org  DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission Monique Schwartz, Associate Planner, provided an overview of the proposal consistent with the staff report. Shiv Talwar, project architect; Robert Taft, landscape architect; and Surinder Multani, property owner, spoke on behalf of the project. Committee members had questions and comments on the following:  Will the project be built according to the City of Orange Conceptual Grading Plan or the Architectural Site Plan? Ms. Schwartz responded the architectural site plan.  Clarification on placement of trees and tree count.  Concerns about the depth of the overhang of the carwash roof on the south elevation. It appears that the roof hangs over the portion of the retaining wall that has the wrought iron fence on it undermining the viability of the trees proposed adjacent to the building.  Distance between the retaining wall that the car wash sits on and the retaining wall that separates the Caltrans easement.  There is a discrepancy on the plans on southwest corner; there is a wall next to a curb.  The lack of landscaping west of the chain link fence.  The lack of design thought given to the placement of the fence. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES August 5, 2020 Page 3 of 7  The wrought iron fence and retaining wall should tie in to the southwest corner of the proposed carwash and the lower wrought iron fence should be eliminated; there is no reason to have two fences going in the same direction so close together.  Whether or not the property west of the chain link fence is an easement.  How the wood structure over the trash enclosure is attached to the masonry structure.  The survivability of plants and delivery of irrigation on the slope given the 2:1 slope.  The lack of protection for the light in the queuing lane because there is no curb and the pavement runs from the building to the wall.  The landscape between the two fences does not appear to have an access point for maintenance purposes. The Committee suggested a connection, no more than 4 feet, from the southwest corner of the building and to a point due west that ties into the new chain link wrought iron fence, and placement of a door for access.  The Committee recommended eliminating the iceberg roses due to the high frequency of maintenance required and the difficult access to this area.  Realign the proposed wrought iron fence to be parallel to the T-wall rather than at an angle. The Committee, applicant and staff discussed the property at the chain link fence; there is nothing on the plans that shows where the easement ends.  The applicant should provide an ALTA survey.  The fence should mirror the direction of the T-wall and make it parallel to the structure rather than having it move away.  The Committee is concerned about the height of the retaining wall near the trash enclosure and that there are only two trees due to lack of space.  The 10-foot 9-inch retaining wall along the freeway with no screening.  The building is too large and is being pushed out over a narrow slope.  Because the site design is so tight and the proposed parking exceeds City standards, consider removing one or two parking spaces and moving the trash enclosure 9' to the east.  The footprint of the carwash is dictated by the access around the building and the inside program.  There are still discrepancies between trades in the drawings.  The Committee is not convinced that the trees can exist so close to the building given it has a 36-inch roof overhang.  This project does not reflect a clear understanding of the slope and it does not address concerns that the Committee has had from the beginning.  It is possible that the applicant may run into a problem when obtaining a permit for the retaining wall. The footing configuration in section CC does not appear to be buildable.  Per the previous landscape plan, the Committee stated that if the entire area of the back slope was not available for landscaping as proposed, the project would not be feasible. There would be no way to make the required findings if the site plan does not match the conditions and if the mitigation that is being proposed is not achievable.  The amount of landscape and hardscape is grossly out of balance. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES August 5, 2020 Page 4 of 7  The Committee agreed that the project was not ready to move forward. The applicant needs to respond to the comments that were given to them from the previous three reviews of this project.  Shifting the carwash to the north could alleviate all the pinch point issues.  Combining the retaining walls into one single retaining wall opens up new options for site and project design. Mr. Talwar explained there is no easement; the fence was built many years ago. They have limited the landscaping in that area in order to allow Caltrans's access. A licensed land surveyor has provided a hand stamped document and opined that based on the parcel map and the legal documents, Caltrans has encroached and built onto the owner's property. Ms. Schwartz explained the City's Public Works Department Right-of-Way staff indicated it is an actual Caltrans right-of-way. The easement exists between the existing chain link fence and the property line along the freeway edge. Mr. Talwar agreed to add plant material to the retaining wall, eliminate parking spaces and move the trash enclosure to redesign the area. The structural engineer is confident the project can be built and asked for a recommendation for approval to the Planning Commission with conditions. Per the applicant’s request, Chair Skorpanich asked the Committee if there were any conditions that could be imposed to support a positive recommendation to the Planning Commission. Ms. Moshier explained the action this evening is a recommendation to the Planning Commission, therefore, the applicant can also request a vote from the Committee in order to move forward to the Planning Commission. Chair Skorpanich queried Committee members on whether any felt the redesign needed could be formulated into conditions without further review and none responded affirmatively. Chair Skorpanich then asked the applicant again if they preferred a continuation or a vote on the Committee recommendation to Planning Commission.” Mr. Talwar asked for a conditional approval based on the redesign of the corner and all of the other recommendations the Committee made this evening. Ms. Moshier explained to the applicant that the Committee cannot make a recommendation for approval on the plan, nor are they willing to approve with conditions. In the interest of moving forward, Ms. Mosher recommended that he take a vote on the recommendation to the Planning Commission. Ms. Moshier emphasized for the applicant that there have been a number of suggestions from the Committee this evening and she has not heard that implementing those will automatically result in a recommendation of approval on the project. The applicant DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES August 5, 2020 Page 5 of 7 should understand that the Committee is continuing to request changes to the site plan and that the project will be coming back to the Design Review Committee one more time. Ms. Moshier asked the applicant if he still wanted a continuance. Ms. Schwartz added if the changes are significant, the project may also have to go back to the SMART Committee. Mr. Talwar requested a continuance. A motion was made to continue Design Review No. 4898-17 – Shell Station and Carwash based on the Committee's comments and recommendations in this meeting, and previous meetings that have not been addressed. MOTION: Fox SECOND: McCormack AYES: McCormack, Skorpanich, McDermott, Imboden, and Fox NOES: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION CARRIED Recess: 7:32 - 7:37 p.m. 3.2 DESIGN REVIEW NO. 4864-16 – CAMEO APARTMENTS GRAPHIC MURAL PANELS (TOWN AND COUNTRY MIXED USE)  A proposal to install graphic mural panels as an aesthetic enhancement to a new apartment complex associated with a mixed-use development project.  1055 Town and Country Road (formerly 999 Town and Country)  Staff Contact: Anna Pehoushek, (714) 744-7228, apehoushek@cityoforange.org  DRC Action: Final Determination Anna Pehoushek, Assistant Community Development Director, provided an overview of the project consistent with the staff report. John Hyde, applicant, spoke on behalf of the project. Chair Skorpanich asked if any public comment was received for this item. Ms. Moshier stated no public comments were received. Committee members had questions and comments on the following:  Clarification on the Terrazzo brand pattern.  The placement and opaqueness of the windows.  Whether the mural color could be continued on the panel returns.  Clarification of the color and sheen of the nearly black building façade compared to the black paint on the mural. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES August 5, 2020 Page 6 of 7  Consider filling in the window spaces rather than making the window covering completely opaque.  Consider wrapping the edges due to the recessed planes.  There is a preference for an intentional contrast between the dark charcoal façade and the black color used on the mural panel. A motion was made to approve Design Review No. 4864-16 – Cameo Apartments Graphic Mural Panels based on the conditions and findings in the staff report with a recommendation to, at the artist's discretion, consider wrapping the paint back to the façade and the parapet that overlaps over the top of the building. MOTION: Fox SECOND: Imboden AYES: McCormack, Skorpanich, McDermott, Imboden, and Fox NOES: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION CARRIED 3.3 DESIGN REVIEW NO. 5014-20 – ST. JOSEPH MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING  A proposal to construct a four-story medical office building with five levels of underground car parking.  331, 353 & 393 S. Main Street  Staff Contact: Robert Garcia, (714) 744-7231, rgarcia@cityoforange.org  DRC Action: Preliminary Review Robert Garcia, Senior Planner provided an overview of the project consistent with the staff report. Mark Toothacher, applicant; Kate Galpin, project architect; and Jim Ridge, landscape architect, spoke on behalf of the project. Chair Skorpanich asked if any public comment was received for this item. Ms. Moshier stated no public comments were received. Committee members had questions and comments on the following:  Clarification on floor plans that show a slightly rotated façade on the south side of the building.  Material of canopies on each floor.  Intent of the horizontal stack material.  The Committee is pleased with the common material that is subtle throughout the project.  Whether the intersection at Columbia Place and Main Street would be signalized.  Clarification on the landscape plan and whether there is an intention to create an overall streetscape theme.  The landscape responds to the architectural type.  Consider engaging the streetscape with seat walls. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES August 5, 2020 Page 7 of 7  The building blends in well, is compatible and appropriate with the remainder of the campus.  The rhythm and balance of the building has been handled well.  Consider an alternative placement of tenant signs other than the front of the building. This item was presented for preliminary review only. Chair Skorpanich thanked the applicant for their submittal. 4. ADJOURNMENT: 9:14 p.m. The next regular meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, August 19, 2020, at 5:30 p.m. via various teleconference locations.