Loading...
12-19-2001 DRC MinutesCITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES for Wednesday, December 19, 2001 Committee Members Present: Alice Angus Leonard Filner (Vice Chair) Mark Paone Susan Secoy Secoy Joe Woollett (Chair) Staff in Attendance: Chuck Lau, Associate Planner Howard Morris, Landscape Coordinator Debbie Ritchey, Recording Secretary Committee Member Absent: None Administrative Session - 4:30 P.M. The committee met for an administrative session beginning at 4:30 p.m. The meeting adjourned at approximately 8:50 p.m. Regular Session - 5:30 PM REVIEW OF MINUTES: The review and approval of the December 5, 2001 minutes was deferred to the January 9, 2002 meeting. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 19, 2001 Page 2 1. DRC No. 3587 - VALERE TARDIF Relocation and modification of a new detached garage for a refurbished Craftsman Bungalow residence that was recently moved-on to the site from another location. 151 S. Harwood Street Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan -Senior Planner, Historic Preservation DRC Action: Final Determination Continued from 12-5-2001 meeting) Applicant not present) A motion was made by Committee Member Mark Paone to continue the project. SECOND:Susan Secoy AYES:Alice Angus, Leonard Filner, Mark Paone, Susan Secoy, Joe Woollett NOES:None ABSENT:None ABSTAINED:None MOTION CARRIED City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 19, 2001 Page 3 2. DRC No. 3630 -CENTURY FAST FOODS, INC. Signage program for existing Taco Bell and other new restaurant tenants. 2233 N. Tustin Street Staff Contact: Chuck Lau -Associate Planner DRC Action: Final Determination Continued from 12-5-2001 meeting) Approved as Consent Item) A motion was made by Committee Member Mark Paone to approve the project with the following condition: 1. If staff is uncomfortable with the composition of the signs in the final design, the project needs to return to DRC for review and approval. The approval was based upon the following findings: 1. The proposed signage utilizes materials, colors, and design motifs that are compatible with the building that is being identified. 2. The proposed signage will not adversely affect surrounding land uses or obscure adjacent conforming signs. 3. The project design upholds community aesthetics through the use of an internally consistent, integrated design theme and is consistent with all adopted specific plans, applicable design standards and their required findings. SECOND:Susan Secoy AYES:Alice Angus, Leonard Filner, Mark Paone, Susan Secoy, Joe Woollett NOES:None ABSENT:None ABSTAINED:None MOTION CARRIED City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 19, 2001 Page 4 3. DRC No. 3641 - BRANDYWINE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Revised Tentative Tract Map 16218 for a Planned Unit Development with 21 single- family detached dwelling units. The proposal had been revised since the original application. The size of the units has been reduced and new architectural elevations have been provided. 1740 Bolingridge Drive Staff Contact: Anna Pehoushek, Senior Planner DRC Action: Recommendation to Planning Commission Bob Mickelson gave an overview of the plan and some details of the project and Jim Barisic spoke of changes to the architecture. Some of the changes are as follows: The homes are considerably smaller in size and bulk, and there is a more interesting architecture. The entry gate has been eliminated. The entrance along Sunview has been narrowed, and moved east a bit so that it is across from the existing slope (it is free ingress and egress now). Bolingridge Drive is now also free ingress and egress, no gate. There will be decorative block wall treatment. The flag lot has been eliminated. The stand of trees will be removed. This enabled them to move two houses. Parking spaces have been increased from 19 to 22. There is a net reduction of retaining walls. There is one retaining wall not shown on plans, but will be implemented by the giant peppertree, which they are tying to save, and will be either 5 or 6 feet in height. These changes were mostly due to input from the neighborhood. Committee Chair Joe Woolett brought up the issue of the homes being closer to street level. Mr. Barisic stated that the homes were actually further back but the lots were closer to the street. This is the area they may request a variance for the 6' high fence at the corner, where it's closer than 20' to the public right-of-way. Committee Member Susan Secoy stated that the committee members had concerns previously about the fence and wondered if it had been simplified. Mr. Barisic replied that it's a more expensive fence, but it is more attractive and it now gives more privacy for the homeowners. There was a discussion regarding the fences. There are three types -tubular steel, pilaster, and solid masonry wall (for screening purposes). There are also grade differences, and trees being planted. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 19, 2001 Page 5 3. DRC No. 3641 - BRANDYWINE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (Continued) Mr. Barisic then spoke of the changes made on the plans of the houses. The goal was to reduce the mass of the houses. The floor plans were originally 3,200 sq.ft. (smallest) and went to 3,600 sq.ft. (largest). They now start at 2,990 sq.ft. (smallest) and go to 3,247 sq.ft. (largest). This is a significant reduction. Plan 4 was the biggest change. Technically, it started out as a 3- story house. Now from the front view it looks like a single story home, and on the down slope side it has the appearance of a 2-story home. There are major changes on the house plans and there are ten different elevations. Committee Member Susan Secoy asked about the exterior treatments for lots 14 through 17 that were previously discussed. Mr. Barisic replied that since the elevations were being changed, the lower levels of the homes would not be in view so it wouldn't be necessary to do a complete wraparound. Although on Lot 17 it is still necessary as the lower level is still visible. Mr. Barisic wanted to explain two additional revisions before the meeting was opened up to the public. There were some wrong call-outs on the Elevation Style A, B, or C: 1) Lot #10 was shown as a 1 C, and is a 1 A, 2) Lot #16 was shown as a 4C, and it is a 4B. Also one of the B's Lots 14 & 16) shows as a reverse and it is not reversed. The meeting was opened for public comments: J. Michael Vanderhoof, 1903 E. Bolingridge Drive - He is very much in favor of the project. He has no qualms of possibly an added 40 cars per day going through the neighborhood with the street going through. Steve Carter, 1838 Bolingridge Drive -Also in favor of the project and would like to really see this project get going. The developer has spent a lot of money and time on the project and hopes the City would support them. Ernie Bustamante - 1843 Bolingridge Drive -Also in favor of the project, and at first was not supportive of the street going through, but he is fine with it now. He would like to see the project proceed forward. Committee Member Susan Secoy stated that the architecture has improved quite a bit and she is supportive of the direction the project is going. Committee Member Mark Paone concurs. His only concern is the documentation on the fencing. He wanted to know what the applicant was looking for at this meeting as he heard reference to them coming back with colors and materials. Mr. Jim Barisic was of the understanding that at this meeting the DRC would take action on the basic architecture presented. But material and color boards would have to be brought back prior to issuance of building permits. He stated they would also do a fence plan on a separate sheet when they bring back material and color boards. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 19, 2001 Page 6 3. DRC No. 3641 - BRANDYWINE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (Continued) Committee Member Leonard Filner was also concerned with the fencing and would appreciate a separate sheet showing a fencing plan. He would also like to see a final landscape plan submitted. Committee Chair Joe Woollett stated that they have made a very good neighbor gesture by eliminating the gate and opening it up. It's now more of an integral part of the neighborhood. Committee Member Susan Secoy stated that the additional guest parking provided is an improvement over the previous plans. Committee Member Mark Paone stated that he would like to see more to be done on the back and side elevations on Lots 16 and 17. A motion was made by Committee Member Mark Paone to recommend approval of the project to the Planning Commission, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant to submit to the DRC a fencing plan with details and elevations of all the different fence materials. 2. The applicant to submit to the DRC color palette and material samples for the entire project. 3. The applicant to submit to the DRC a final landscape plan. 4. The elevations of Lot 17 to be provided with simulated wood siding on all four elevations, no stucco finish. SECOND: Joe Woollett AYES: Alice Angus, Leonard Filner, Mark Paone, Susan Secoy, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: None MOTION CARRIED City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 19, 2001 Page 7 4. DRC No. 3658 - KATELLA COMMERCE CENTER Reconstruction of a 2-story 34,400 sq. ft. mixed-use industrial building with site landscaping. 1744 W. Katella Avenue Staff Contact: Mario Chavez-Marquez -Planning Aide DRC Action: Recommendation to Planning Commission Paul Toberty, applicant and James Dietze of Architects Orange presented the project. Approximately a year ago there was a fire in this building, which has prompted the applicant to reconstruct the building. The proposal is to construct atwo-story tilt-up building. Prior to the fire the building was atilt-up with a framed second story. The desire of the applicant is to design the building so that it will tie in with the other buildings. Committee Member Mark Paone asked for clarification on how the new plans and all of the buildings fit together. James Dietze responded regarding the colors and trim features. Committee Member Mark Paone does not have a problem with the massing of the building, but feels that it would be beneficial if the applicant returns to address the concerns and give a more clear explanation how it will all come together. Committee Chair Joe Woollett feels that it is a difficult problem to tie all four buildings together. His concern is that what was brought before the committee is so different from the other buildings. He also thinks that it's possible to make it work, but not sure what it would be. Providing photographs of the other building in the area would help. Mr. Toberty's concern is to have his buildings blend and keep up with what is being developed in the surrounding area. Committee Member Mark Paone suggested that perhaps atwo-tone paint scheme might work. This would not be a significant impact on the project. It can be a transitional building. He would like to see just how the transition would occur. Committee Member Leonard Filner spoke regarding the site plan and the landscape plan. He understands the parking situation is very tight and that they can't lose any spaces, but he would like to see an adjustment made to the parking configuration, so that a planter finger with a tree can be added. A motion was made by Committee Member Mark Paone to continue the project, based on the above discussion. SECOND: Susan Secoy AYES: Alice Angus, Leonard Filner, Mark Paone, Susan Secoy, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: None MOTION CARRIED City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 19, 2001 Page 8 5. DRC No. 3688 - STONEGATE SENIOR APARTMENTS Modification of an approved 20 dwelling unit senior housing project to include the addition of an indoor recreation room and revised building elevation plans. 170 N. Prospect Street Staff Contact: Chuck Lau, Associate Planner DRC Action: Final Determination Continued from 12-5-2001 meeting) Committee Member Susan Secoy is abstaining from this item as she is representing the applicant. Susan Secoy of Secoy Architects presented this project for Urban Pacific Builders. This was continued from the last DRC meeting. Since the last meeting it was learned that the project did not qualify, as designed, as a two-story building. The apartment complex has been re-designed to be what is considered atwo-story building by lowering the garage floor. One of the concerns at the last meeting was the ramp and the entry and how all of the components came together. They have re-worked that situation which enabled them to reduce the size of the ramp. It was a switchback before, and now they are looking at a condition where it has been simplified and it is now a straight ramp. They have re-worked the trash enclosure and transformer location. She had details, which were requested from the last meeting. There was a lack of clarity as far as what was happening with some of the materials and different architectural elements. By lowering the building an additional 2'-2" they have been able to increase the pitch of the roof. Another question previously was what was happening to the posts and how they would be detailed. Abase and a capital have been designed, and they also have a simplified rail design which will be a painted metal. Ms. Secoy stated the main difference from the previous review is that the building has been lowered a couple of feet. This helped to refine the entry piece, which had been problematic. Committee Member Mark Paone stated that the rhythm of the building was not working. He pointed out that the brackets on the building were not consistent. Committee Chair Joe Woollett stated that the project needs more details, and that the design hadn't gone far enough to carry the style through on the building. Ms. Secoy replied that it was meant to be a very understated building, not ornate, low-income affordable housing. She felt that perhaps the brackets could be removed from the rest of the building, except on the tower. They will focus on working out the rhythm on the tower brackets. A motion was made by Committee Member Mark Paone to approve the project with the following conditions: 1. Submit final landscape plans to DRC for review and approval. 2. The bracket detail to be executed in a consistent manner on all four sides of the tower element, and removed from the rest of the building. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 19, 2001 Page 9 5. DRC No. 3688 - STONEGATE SENIOR APARTMENTS (Continued) The approval was based on the following finding: The project design upholds community aesthetics through the use of an internally consistent, integrated design theme and is consistent with all adopted specific plans, applicable design standards and their required findings. SECOND:Alice Angus AYES:Alice Angus, Mark Paone, Joe Woollett NOES:None ABSENT:None ABSTAINED:Leonard Filner, Susan Secoy MOTION CARRIED City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 19, 2001 Page 10 6. DRC No. 3695 - CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY Replacement of an existing dormitory (Cheverton Hall) and surface parking lot with a new four-story, ±300 bed dormitory and six-level, 600 space parking structure. One University Drive (generally west of Shaffer St. & north of Walnut Ave.) Staff Contact: Anna Pehoushek, Senior Planner DRC Action: Recommendation Robert Hornacek -Project Architect, presented the project. The area is the residential quad, which is bordered by Shaffer Street on the east, Walnut Avenue on the south, and Grand Street on the west. The goal is to get additional housing and parking for students. Cheverton Hall is currently unoccupied and will be demolished as part of the project. Mr. Hornacek showed photographs (homes along Shaffer) and how close Cheverton is to the street. Plans are for the new building to be approximately 20 feet further back. He spoke of large tree, which will be preserved. The new parking structure on Sycamore is functioning and full quite often and remote from the new area. The campus needs parking in the above-mentioned residential area. The initial thought was to have the parking sort of "ring" the quad and have a big, open space in the center for the use of the students, and then ultimately it was decided that taking multi-level parking and putting it out on the street was not the right thing to do for the community. The thought then became to put the parking in the center with the housing around the perimeter to soften the community's window to the campus. Mr. Hornacek then showed a site plan to the Committee. He showed that the fire lane will be pretty much exclusively for emergency vehicles. No need for pedestrians to walk in that direction. The basic concept of the building is that both automobiles and pedestrian traffic will all arrive from the interior of the residential quad. Even though the buildings front on Shaffer Street, there really is no entrance from Shaffer Street except for emergency access points. Committee Chair Joe Woollett asked how visitors would come to one of the resident's dorms to which Mr. Hornacek answered more than likely they would park in one of the parking structures. Mr. Hornacek spoke in detail regarding the dormitory plan. One of the basic decisions that were made was to do an interior corridor, and double load it, as opposed to making any sort of exterior balconies. Even though the exterior balconies are somewhat less expensive to build back-up plumbing, etc.) they really don't want to encourage the students to be interacting with the community in that way. Next Mr. Hornacek showed elevation plans, and spoke of comments on the look of the building. They feel that the new dorm, since it would be facing a more residential area should have a more residential look. They are looking at massing and volume studies. Another comment from the study session, which was addressed, was that they should do a study model, and what they did was a computer model, which was presented to the Committee for viewing. This view shows how they screen the parking structure. Mr. Hornacek showed several different computer views of this parking structure and the screening. He showed streetscape as is, which is virtually no streetscape. The new plan shows 30 feet of landscaping. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 19, 2001 Page 11 6. DRC No. 3695 - CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY (Continued) Committee Member Alice Angus asked about fencing along the streetscape. Mr. Hornacek responded that in the views he had shown, the fencing is far enough back so it is not seen. But on the site plan, it's between the buildings. That was the plan with the landscaping on the new project, to return it visually to the community. The meeting was opened for public comments. Joan Crawford - 394 S. Orange. She had attended the study session and had a couple of questions. She asked if all of the other dorms are four stories, she thought some were 3 stories. Mr. Hornacek answered; some are as low as two. Ms. Crawford stated she likes the concept but asked about the statement of "no entrance to the dorms from Shaffer"? There was a short discussion, which followed. There was also a question of high school students and having access into the dorms and cross- flow traffic. The fencing will take care of any problems with these two mentioned items. Another concern of Ms. Crawford was the overall height of the dorm and the parking structure behind the dormitory building. It seems to be quite massive and overwhelming. Janet Crenshaw - 464 N. Shaffer. Ms. Crenshaw had another concern regarding the lighting in the parking structure, as the one on Sycamore is quite visible from Walnut. Mr. Hornacek stated they would be submitting photo metrics to show how this will be taken care of. Mr. John Biggs from Chapman University said that light standards have been proposed which are a maximum of 12 feet from the surface of the deck. Committee Member Mark Paone wanted to expand on what is going on in the courtyard. Mr. Paone feels the courtyard should be for the students. He feels very strongly that the students should have an outside area to congregate and that this courtyard is the perfect place to have it, as this area would bother the least amount of neighbors. Mr. Hornacek stated that they did not want to encourage anything in that area by providing a large paved area to have activities such as volleyball, etc. Their plan was to have it as more of a passive area. Committee Member Susan Secoy spoke of the exterior space and how critical it is to have areas such as this. Her concern was that everything is about the built space as opposed to the open space. She thinks these open spaces, which were being discussed, should be used, and not how not to use them. Another concern was not seeing everything complete. They just keep seeing things in pieces to review. Mr. Hornacek spoke of the different areas, which were available for student gathering, etc. The new area would probably not go much farther than what was provided at Henley, which is some outdoor seating, shade structures, and decorative paving, to encourage gathering but not basketball games. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 19, 2001 Page 12 6. DRC No. 3695 - CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY (Continued) Committee Member Susan Secoy does have some problem with the mass of the parking structure. The shadow study does indicate the spaces for students to gather are in shadow. She understands the University needs more parking but wonders if they need as much as is being proposed. Mr. Biggs answered that with Henley Hall, 100 parking spaces were displaced and with Henley Hall they added a need for 150 parking spaces. The plan is to bring the number of resident students up. They currently have 1,300 beds with this addition and they need to ultimately bring this number up to 2,500 beds. The best approach for the University is to get the parking in place and then proceed with plans to upgrade the resident buildings. Committee Member Susan Secoy asked if it was entirely cost prohibitive to lower the parking structure 3 or 4 feet. Mr. Biggs stated that this would create access problems to the structure and would increase the cost considerably. It would also create a security issue. Committee Chair Jae Woollett expressed concerns with the lighting in the parking structure. Mr. Biggs answered they have looked at bringing the light standards down to 12 ft., rather than hat box type light -using the 4 flood type on the top of the building. Also to get any edge lighting, they would use bulkhead lighting on the perimeter shining inward, as compared to the Lemon Street/Sycamore parking structure where the poles are 20 ft. poles. They had to meet the security lighting levels required by the police department. Committee Member Susan Secoy asked if there was a Master Plan for everything that the Committee has been reviewing. Mr. Biggs replied that they have a schematic study that has been done. Committee Member Susan Secoy stated that she would like to see the vision of what is happening, where the students are going to congregate in the exterior space, which is getting covered up more and more with the new buildings. Committee Member Mark Paone agreed he would like to see a plan showing exterior spaces for students. He would like to see the whole project put together a bit more, where are the cars, where are the students, how are they crossing, how does it all fit? Mr. Biggs agrees that the next step is to resolve all of these things. Mr. Paone requested that everyone should drive by the St. Joseph's parking structure at La Veta up next to the 22 freeway. At night, it just "screams" at you. Mr. Paone also asked how the move-in/move-out issues were being dealt with. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 19, 2001 Page 13 6. DRC No. 3695 - CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY (Continued) Mr. Biggs answered that they would dedicate the first level of the parking structure. When the students move-in and out they rent the large grocery carts provided by the college to move their items (since they are not moving any large furniture in or out). Mr. Biggs showed on the plans the areas, which are set aside for moving and what works with the other dorms. Committee Member Mark Paone wanted to discuss the one story roof element, which had been added; he says, "It seems the proportion is a little awkward". He's not sure what the solution is, maybe bringing it up to the second floor or not doing it. Mr. Hornacek wanted to create a nice, simple element in the center and has no problem with bumping it up a level. Mr. Hornacek said what they are hoping to go away with tonight is approval of the mass; approval of the style, with the understanding that light fixtures will need to be addressed further and the window treatments will also be looked at. Committee Member Mark Paone asked if this was just a recommendation tonight (not necessarily to Planning Commission). Committee Member Alice Angus answered that it is still being decided if the proposal clearly fits within the Specific Plan in terms of use, location, and design and that there are no environmental issues other than those already identified. Then the decision comes to her. They are still working through that process as they get more studies on lighting, traffic, and noise. It has been to Staff Review Committee, for their input. SRC proposed the item move on to the DRC to specifically address the design. If all issues are not resolved the item may move on to Planning Commission. What she is hearing is that there still are some elements that need refining. Committee Member Susan Secoy believes all of the Committee approves of the concept. Committee Member Mark Paone says that he is not in full agreement with the massing and style of the building. Mr. Hornacek stated that the lighting would be studied more carefully and also that they will take a look at some architectural elements that would fit into what they have already to make it look less like a parking structure. Committee Member Alice Angus stated tonight she would like a vote in terms of approval in concept and any conditions they would like placed on the project. She also stated she would abstain from tonight's vote, since it may come back to her for a decision. A discussion of the conditions, and what the conditions should be, followed. A motion was made by Committee Member Mark Paone to recommend approval of the project, subject to the following conditions: That the project returns to DRC with final development, including a lighting analysis to study of the impact of the lighting on adjacent areas. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 19, 2001 Page 14 5. DRC No. 3695 - CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY (Continued) 2. Provide facade study of the parking structure with the courtyards being more responsive to student use. 3. Provide more detailing of the building, particularly along the Shaffer Street elevation. 4. Applicant to study raising the one story roof element to two stories. 5. Submit final landscape plan to DRC for approval. The approval was based on the following findings: 1. The project design upholds community aesthetics through the use of an internally consistent, integrated design theme and is consistent with all adopted specific plans, applicable design standards and their required findings. 2. The project design is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Chapman University Specific Plan. SECOND: Joe Woollett AYES: Leonard Filner, Mark Paone, Susan Secoy, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: Alice Angus MOTION CARRIED DRC 12-19-01 Minutes