Loading...
06-07-2006 DRC MinutesCITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES -FINAL June 7, 2006 Committee Members Present: Jon Califf Bill Cathcart Donnie DeWees Craig Wheeler Joe Woollett Staff in Attendance: Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager Anne Fox, Contract Staff Planner Daniel Ryan, Senior Planner Sonal Thakur, Assistant Planner Howard Morris, Senior Landscape Coordinator Mari Burke, Recording Secretary Administrative Session - 5:00 P.M. The Committee met for an administrative session beginning at 5:00 p.m. The meeting adjourned at approximately 8:03 p.m. Regular Session - 5:30 P.M. A moment of silence was taken in remembrance of Councilman Steve Ambriz. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 7, 2006 Page 2 1. DRC No. 4022-OS - LEZAMA RESIDENCE Proposal for a new 2,825 sq. ft. two-story, second-unit, with attached garage. 569 N. Olive Street Staff Contact: Dan Ryan, (714) 744-7224, dryan cr,cit ofy orange.org DRC Action: Final Determination Continued from April 19, 2006 DRC Meeting A brief project overview was provided by Planner Dan Ryan during which he advised the applicant was asked to address a number of issues as noted in the Staff Report. A review of the modifications was done which addressed most of the initial concerns. Planner Ryan advised Staff had several minor comments and recommendations: 1) The added rear shed dormer on the rear could be set back from the building edge to improve its appearance. 2) The windows on the front shed dormer should be modified to be more uniform in size and placement. 3) The use of decorative pavers was suggested to break up the open parking area between the two structures. The applicant commented he believed there was quite a change represented in the new plans. No public input was provided. Committee Member Wheeler stated it was evident the applicant had attempted to make most of the modifications suggested in the earlier meeting and it appears to be a much better project. The suggestions made regarding the ribbon driveway and texture in the parking areas is not mandatory. Chair Califf stated he thought it would make it better. The brick in the sidewalk should not be done. There was a wall shown on the drawings which the applicant stated is not planned. Chair Califf stated he thought it would help to create the affect of a patio in the rear area. The location and suggestions as to how that could be achieved were provided. Chair Califf suggested eliminating the dormer over the stair. Further, Chair Califf stated the barges should be plumb cut, 2x8 (vs. 2x6); the visible tail of the rafters should be 2x4; there are double hung windows on the south and north elevations with sliders on the east and west. Double hungs should be used almost everywhere. Egress requirements could be met with casements. For consistency and since this is not an infill residence he thought they should keep with the historically correct function of the window, which would mean staying away from horizontal sliders. A post column and beam affect could be used on the porch. The door should be Craftsman style. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 7, 2006 Page 3 Committee Member Woollett stated if the wall was lower in size, then the backup space could be reduced from 25' to 22' or 23' then there would be more area for landscape. He cautioned the use of tall shrubs in that area. Chair Califf encouraged the following project modifications: 1) Provide a ribbon driveway on the front driveway from the sidewalk to the house. 2) Use decorative pavers to break up the open parking area between the two structures. Chair Califf made a motion to approve DRC No. 4022-OS with the following conditions: 1) Provide a minimum of 22.5' from the face of the new dwelling to the curb (backup space behind the garage door). 2) Provide a 2x8 barge board and 2x4 rafter tails -both with a plumb cut on the end. 3) The window treatments on the east and west elevation be consistent with the architectural style of the house which includes single or double hung casement, awning or fixed windows. This does not include horizontal sliders. 4) Modify the front shed dormer as indicated on the sketch. 5) Front entry door and adjacent windows be consistent with the architectural style. 6) The treatment of the porch trim on the columns and beam be looked at to more closely reflect the architectural style. 7) The new irrigation system should be automatic. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES:Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES:None ABSTAIN:None ABSENT:None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 7, 2006 Page 4 2. DRC No. 4054-OS -TOYOTA OF ORANGE EXPANSION Proposal to remodel a commercial structure to accommodate a 52-bay service facility as an ancillary use of the existing Toyota car sales business. 1485 North Tustin Street Staff Contact: Anne Fox, (714) 744-7229, afox cr,cit of~ge.org DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission A project overview was provided by Planner Anne Fox during which she advised the most extensive work is being done to the inside of the facility. The use of the facility will require a Conditional Use Permit, as it will be operating ancillary to the primary use, which is the automotive sales dealership located across the street. There will not be customer traffic at this location. The facility will be refaced to match the Toyota corporate identity utilizing white and gray with red accent. The applicant provided color renderings and a sample board. The applicant's representatives were introduced. Tom Lennon, the Project Architect advised: 1) The operation will be fully contained in the building. 2) The only improvements to be made to the outside of the building is to make the building more secure due to the amount of car and parts inventory. 3) The major renovation that is occurring is in the central section, which will be removed. 4) The aggregate panels will stay. 5) Most of the work will be done on the south side of the building and also on the west (facing Tustin). 6) Development done on the north end will be for employee and service queuing. 7) Some extensive work will be done to the parking area. Staff's recommendation was to lighten up the density of the parking on the southwest corner to make it look more like an office complex and use the heavy stacking on the east side. 8) Some landscaping will be done across the central aisle. 9) They will be eliminating two driveways on Van Owen. 10) The right out/right in previously used by the bowling area will be removed in its entirety. ll) The new service door will be solid (versus a grille) for security purposes. 12) There will be no impact from a noise level to the residential area on the east. Casey Sauers, Sauers Construction Inc., reiterated there will be no general public access. No public comment was provided. Committee Member Woollett asked if they would be painting over the aggregate. Mr. Lennon responded "the split face masonry will be painted." Chair Califf asked if they anticipated a problem infilling the back door area. Mr. Sauers responded they will try to duplicate what is currently there. Committee Member Cathcart provided a copy of the landscape notations to be added to the plan and asked where the two new ficus trees are to be located. He stated on the next round of drawings they need to be captured. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 7, 2006 Page 5 Committee Member Wheeler asked if they would be adding some mechanical or venting equipment on the roof. If so, he thought there should be a condition they submit sight lines to the Planning Staff. Planner Fox indicated the Code states mechanical equipment needs to not be visible from the public right of way. The applicant asked "what about from the freeway?" Planner Fox responded the Code specifically says "from pedestrian view." Mr. Lennon added they will have new air conditioning. Planner Fox cited another location where they had the equipment painted to match the roof so that from a freeway view it all looked uniform and it eliminated the need to build screening. Chair Califf asked if they would be installing additional lighting to the rear area parking. Planner Fox responded there was no indication from the Police Department that it would be required and Mr. Lennon added they had no intention to add any at this time. Chair Califf stated that for employee safety they might need it. Chair Califf asked it there would be a paging system added. Mr. Lennon responded "no." Chair Califf asked if the change in stacking recommended by Staff caused any concern. Planner Fox responded that since it's not considered parking for customers or employees there is not a set standard. Chair Califf offered a suggestion to achieve additional parking which Mr. Sauers stated he thought would be very well received by the site owner. Since there is a parts counter shown on the drawings Committee Member Wheeler asked if the public would be going to the location to purchase parts. Mr. Lennon responded "no, this would be strictly for the mechanics." Chair Califf asked what would be latest they would receive a night drop of parts from the factory. Mr. Lennon stated it would be delivered to the facility across the street, typically at approximately 4 a.m. The parts brought to this new facility would be from the bins across the street. Planner Fox stated the City noise ordinance would be applicable which would preclude this from happening in the early a.m. Chair Califf asked where the compressors would be located. Mr. Lennon responded they will be outside; however, they will be enclosed. Chair Califf asked if oil and waste oil would be stored in above ground tanks. Mr. Lennon responded "yes, nothing below." Chair Califf asked how the servicing would be done. Mr. Lennon responded they have met with the vendor that currently works with them. He pointed out on the drawings how the area is accessed. Chair Califf pointed out that the area where the tanks are located should have curbing around it. He also stated the tanks are normally required to be covered. Mr. Lennon acknowledged this requirement and indicated he would add this to the plans prior to going to the Planning Commission. Chair Califf asked for the same detail to be done for the tire area. Committee Member Wheeler asked if there was a concern relative to the proximity of the oil storage to the drainage channel. Chair Califf stated they need to meet the Water Quality Department requirements and they will want to see what is planned. Planner Fox said they are already working on this. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 7, 2006 Page 6 Committee Member Wheeler asked where the wash area would be located. Mr. Lennon responded there would be some detailing done in the new area; however, the primary wash area will remain where it is across the street. The engine wash is a steam cleaning process and it will be compliant with Water Quality requirements. Chair Califf stated the trash enclosure area will require a roof cover over it. Committee Members Woollett and Wheeler agreed with Chair Califf that Staff could perform verification of the incorporation of the DRC requirements prior to moving on to the Planning Commission. Mr. Sauers stated they understood the DRC intentions as outlined during this meeting and they will conform to all of them. Committee Member Califf made a motion to recommend approval to the Planning Commission of DRC No. 4054-OS with the following conditions: 1) The applicant be allowed to arrange the stacking of their inventory parking in tandom groups of 2 or 3. 2) There is no public address system to be on on-site. 3) Prior to plan check the applicant will provide a line of sight study verifying the roof mounted equipment will not be visible from the public right of way. 4) The applicant will provide plans and elevations showing: the oil storage area for new and used oil, the engine wash area, the used tire storage area, the compressor area and the roof over the trash enclosure. The representation plans of these will be added as an exhibit to the documents provided to the Planning Commission. 5) The exhibit will reflect the location of the two (2) ficus trees indicated on the landscape plan. 6) The City standard landscape notes will be added to the plans. 7) A linear root barrier will be provided if any of the ficus trees will be planted within 5' of any building or hadscape. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES:Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES:None ABSTAIN:None ABSENT:None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 7, 2006 Page 7 3. DRC No. 4063-06 -GARDEN GROVE RETAIL CENTER (QWIK KORNER) Proposed demolition and construction of new Liquor Store and Retail space. 4045 Garden Grove Boulevard Staff Contact: Sonal Thakur, 714-744-7239, sthakur c ,cit.. of~ge.org DRC Action: Final Determination Committee Member Cathcart recused himself due to his involvement with this project. A project overview and introduction to Mr. Robert Michelson was provided by Assistant Planner Sonal Thakur. Ms. Thakur advised the Committee Members that Mr. Michelson would be speaking on behalf of the applicant who was unavailable at the meeting. Ms. Thakur also advised that Staff was recommending approval of the design; however, they were concerned about the north and east elevations which are predominantly blank block walls. She also mentioned that this would be going to the Planning Commission for the ABC permit and it is tentatively scheduled for the July 17th meeting. Mr. Michelson added they submitted a color board and computer generated view of the location. He provided pictures of the senior tower to the east and the Catholic Church to the west as well as one of the existing site. He stated he believed they did a good job in blending the architectural style to the church and the senior tower. This is a family owned business. They own the building and the land and it is a source of pride to them to be able to upgrade the area. No public comment was provided. Chair Califf questioned the lines on the north elevation (score lines used). He stated he was more comfortable with using stucco over the block to tie it in to the other elevation and the change from CMU block to stucco on the building elevations and around the corner is too abrupt. He requested they not stop the stucco at the corner, instead they should continue it along. Committee Member Wheeler was concerned about the 1 foot space where trash may collect between the existing block wall and the side of the new building. Instead, he recommended demolishing the existing wall and fence on the adjoining property line. This would allow them to use the building wall as a functional fence. Committee Member Woollett also did not see the need for additional stucco. If split face CMU block was used, he questioned if additional steel would need to be used to hold up the building. What would hold up the masonry? He stated that steel or a column could be put inside the building to provide support. The decorative material could be any number of things as long as it was applied consistently throughout the design. Committee Member DeWees wanted to know how the parapet caps were going to be handled. He stated special attention should be paid to the coping; it should be clean so as not to create shadows. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 7, 2006 Page 8 Chair Califf made a motion to continue this item with direction to the Architect to: 1) Provide information on the parapet coping (both plaster & block). 2) Provide information on the intended design of the block walls above the market area. Evaluate the possibility of using the north and east elevation walls, possibility eliminating the block walls in those areas & treating those elevations in a complimentary fashion (i.e. stucco or something that would eliminate an odd transition around the corner). 3) Provide information on the direction of the roof slope so as to ensure that the mechanical equipment is screened. 4) Try to find a means to eliminate the 1' separation between the parking lot wall and the building wall. 5) Indicate where the transformer is located (actually, work with Edison on this. Usually the location is near the right of way). 6) Detail the corner with the concrete/stucco detail, whatever is decided. 7) Provide more information on the metal canopy---is it closed or open? Solid box? Metal? SECOND:Craig Wheeler AYES:Jon Califf, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES:None ABSTAIN:None ABSENT:None RECUSED:Bill Cathcart MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 7, 2006 Page 9 4. DRC No. 4089-06 -JOHNNY CARINO'S ITALIAN RESTAURANT Proposal for a new 6,892 square foot restaurant in Stadium Promenade. 1625 West Katella Avenue Staff Contact: Sonal Thakur, 714-744-7239, sthakur(c~~cit. ofy orange.org DRC Action: Final Determination A project overview was provided by Assistant Planner Sonal Thakur during which she advised Staff is requesting the DRC determine the appropriateness of the parapet with the wood trellis, the barrel tiles on the roof and the numerous number of light fixtures on the roof as well as throughout the building. Brian Price, the Chief Development Officer for the Breckinridge Group introduced himself and stated they are the franchisee for Johnny Carino's for the States of California, Nevada and Utah. Further: 1) They have seventeen (17) stores open in California. 2) This is the standard, typical design for Johnny Carino's. 3) Johnny Carino's is a national chain based out of Austin, Texas-with 200 locations nationwide. 4) This store will be the closest to the Breckinridge headquarters which is in Rancho Santa Margarita. Mr. Price asked to address the three issues highlighted by Staff and provided the following detail: 1) RE: the barrel the roof: a picture of the Chino location was provided. The material used there was a clay, orange the which has now been softened with a natural toned, tri-color barrel the being proposed. 2) RE: the light fixtures on the roof: these are actually accent lights around the roof. This has been raised as an issue in other cities. They addressed it in Whitter by painting the lighting fixture to match the surrounding roof the so it blends. They also decreased the height it protrudes above the roof the so they don't appear so tall. They tilt them to get the flashing on to the contours. They would be happy to do the same here in Orange if it would mitigate the issue. 3) RE: the parapet. The use of additional mansard-like roofing as proposed by Staff would change the pitch of the roof substantially. Instead they would like to look at the root of the problem. They believe the biggest area of concern is in the rear of the building where they placed a trellis to break up the large stucco field. Typically they place a sign in that area; however, they were maxed out on the number of signs they were allowed so they suggested the trellis to match the trellis in another area. Rather than redesign the roof and change all the pitches they suggested: a. Reproducing the stone columns periodically to break up this area b. Using heavier cornice detail c. Reproducing the shuttered window affect utilized in another area of the building. This would be consistent with what King's Fish did on their building. d. The building uses a herringbone brick pattern which could be done also. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 7, 2006 Page 10 Committee Member DeWees expressed his preference would be to use the shuttered look (item c. above) Committee Member Woollett stated he didn't mind the plain wall; however, he is concerned about the elevation above this where the roof stops flush with the stucco band. He said the pitched roof should extend another foot or so as it is an awkward joint. The Architect said there is a roof plan in the package submitted and they will look at reducing the parapet. Chair Califf said the parapet doesn't bother them as they recognize there is a reason for it. Instead, other options were explored which included the use of an overhang or providing a break in the wall underneath so it is stepped back somewhat. No public comment was provided. Committee Member Wheeler asked why they had so many different roof pitches. The Architect said they looked at it and they could reduce the parapet somewhat. Committee Member Wheeler stated he too was concerned about the use of the lattice. The Architect stated they could use the shuttered window treatment. Committee Member Wheeler commented he noticed access for a satellite appears on the roof plan and he wanted to know if it would be visible. Mr. Price responded "no it will not. It's on the flat part of the roof, behind the parapet and it's completely covered." Committee Member Wheeler expressed concern about the use of concrete the versus clay the and stated he understands most of the heavy clay the used here is more Spanish than Italian. Committee Member DeWees questioned the color of the down spouts and asked that they be darkened. Regarding the lights, Committee Member Wheeler stated he wasn't concerned as he was hoping they were overdrawn on the elevations. The Architect responded they are much smaller (a cutsheet was provided). Committee Member Wheeler suggested they paint them out to match the roof as they did in the other location mentioned earlier. Committee Member DeWees questioned the trim stucco used in the entrance. The response was that this area is set back so it's not so visible. Mr. Price stated they would be having a canvas awning in front of the entry. The color selection is to match the branding. Committee Member Cathcart stated: 1) He thought the landscape plan was fine; however, when they submit the final plan to the City he would like more size and quantity of the plant material detail provided. 2) Linear root barriers should be provided for any trees planted within 5 feet of buildings or hardscape. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 7, 2006 Page 11 3) There are notes that should be added to the plans (a copy was provided to the Applicant). 4) The final plans should be submitted to the Community Services Department. Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve DRC No. 4089-06 with the following conditions: 1) The light fixtures on the roof shall be reduced in size and painted to match the roof color. 2) The lattice work on the parapet (southeast elevation) shall be removed, and an effort shall be made to reduce the parapet's scale by increasing the slope of the roof. An alternative to the increased roof slope would be to use the same window treatments on the parapet, as are used on the lower portion of the building (southeast elevation). 3) The downspouts on the southeast elevation shall be painted a darker color. 4) The Applicant shall provide a planting legend on the plans with symbol, name, size, and quantity of plant material. 5) The Applicant shall provide notes on the plans for the linear root barrier requirement for trees planted within 5 feet of buildings or hadscape. 6) The Applicant shall provide the City required landscape and irrigation notes on plans. 7) The final landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the City Community Services Department for approval. SECOND: Donnie DeWees AYES: Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 7, 2006 Page 12 5. DRC No. 4097-06 - MAZDA OF ORANGE REMODEL Proposal to remodel the existing Ford car sales business to include the Mazda brand by enclosing existing covered outdoor display area and by constructing 396 square foot addition for specialized vehicle display. 1350 West Katella Avenue Staff Contact: Anne Fox, (714) 744-7229, afox(a~cit of~orange.org DRC Action: Final Determination A project overview was provided by Planner Anne Fox during which she .called attention to a minor change to the existing Ford signage that is being proposed. This change is to facilitate making sure service customers know the entrances for both Ford and Mazda are in the same location. Ms. Fox pointed out that the additional signage is well below what is allowed on this elevation and since there is not a change in use, this project will not be going to the Planning Commission. No public comment was provided. The applicant shared color boards and stated this project is primarily to improve the resources of this facility. Committee Member Wheeler asked if losing parking spaces is an issue as it appears there will be a reduction of four. The applicant responded it is not an issue. The Committee Members asked the applicant clarifying questions about the plans and some of the materials used. Responses were provided with references done to several sections of the drawings. Chair Califf asked if there would be any landscape changes. The applicant responded there would be none. Committee Member Woollett made a motion to approve DRC 4097-06. The approval includes the Staff's specific recommendations and includes the change in signage presented at this meeting. SECOND: Bill Cathcart AYES:Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES:None ABSTAIN:None ABSENT:None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 7, 2006 Page 13 REVIEW OF MINUTES: Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve the minutes of the April 5, 2006 and April 19, 2006 meetings with revisions as noted. SECOND: Joe Woollett AYES:Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES:None ABSTAIN:None ABSENT:None MOTION CARRIED. Chair Califf made a motion to approve the minutes of the May 3, 2006 meeting with revisions as noted. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES:Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES:None ABSTAIN:None ABSENT:None MOTION CARRIED. A motion was made by Chair Califf to adjourn until the next scheduled session. SECOND: Donnie DeWees AYES:Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES:None ABSTAIN:None ABSENT:None MOTION CARRIED.