Loading...
07-02-2003 DRC MinutesCITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES Wednesday, July 2, 2003 Committee Members Present: Jon Califf Leonard Filner Craig Wheeler Joe Woollett (Chair) Staff in Attendance: Jim Reichert, Acting Planning Manager 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 8:30 p.m. Regular Session - 5:30 PM REVIEW OF MINUTES: A motion was made by Committee Chair Joe Woollett to approve the May 2t, 2003 minutes subject to the following corrections: DRC 3776-02 Robert MacArthur M. D. page 2 paragraph 3, sentence 1 amended as follows: Chair Woollett pointed out that the shutters do not match the other architectural details, that the trellises were too small e~ in scale when compared to the other architectural features, and the wall lights should be placed elsewhere to complement the architectural windows. Paragraph 4, sentence 4 amended as follows: In reference to the size of a Queen Palm, that is called out as an eight-foot ~d brown trunk height minimum (the architect called it out as a box size). DRC 3816 03 The Jensen Building pale 9 paragraph 5 sentence 2 amended as follows: Committee Member Califf answered that as the project sits right now, he does not believe it complies ~ completely with the design standards. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 2, 2003 Page 2 DRC 3818-03-Erice and Lisa Woolerv page 11, paragraph 7, sentence 2 amended as follows: Mr. Woolery answered that the exterior is stucco, and added they weren't sure if it was e€ brick construction or wood framed. Page 12 paragraph 3, sentence 2 amended as follows: When you get into tleE~ turf block once the grass grows in you can't see where the edge is. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Jon Califf, Leonard Filner, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: None MOTION CARRIED A motion was made by Joe Woollett to approve the June 4, 2003 minutes with the following corrections: DRC 3786-02 Archstone Gateway Apartments page 3 paragraph 3 sentence 4 amended as follows: The applicant wants an internal site that works well in itself and also be a good neighbor to the surrounding area. Page 5 paragraph 7, sentence 1 amended as follows: Per ~ Committee Member Wheeler's request, they discussed the different pedestrian accesses, especially to go to the Block. DRC 3828-03 Orange Tower page 7 paragraph 2 sentence 1 amended as follows: Committee Member Wheeler suggested putting a new addition to the existing sign so that it's more visible, or to make a new form out of the existing. Paragraph 6, sentence 1 amended as follows: Committee Member Filner asked Mr. Anderson to look at the proposal, between the two (2) proposed, that is closest to code. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 2, 2003 Page 3 SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Jon Califf, Leonard Filner, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: None MOTION CARRIED A motion was made by Committee Chair Joe Woollett to approve the June 18, 2003 minutes subject to the following corrections: DRC 3738-03 St Paul's Lutheran School Master Plan page 2 paragraph 3 sentence 3 amended as follows: After some discussion the conclusion was to stagger them, along Heim, have six (6) of the thirteen (13) palms be eight (8) foot brown trunk height, seven (7) of them be six (6) foot brown trunk height, and along the administration building, the three (3) palms there will be ten (10) foot brown trunk height. Condition 1 amended as follows: 1. The trunk size of the Palms along Heim be: six (6) of the thirteen (13) palms be eight (8) foot brown trunk height, seven (7) of them be six (6) foot brown trunk height, and along the administration building, the three (3) palms there will be ten (10) foot brown trunk height. DRC 3827 03 Shawn & Janelle Hall ~a eg_4_paragzaph 3 sentence 1 amended as follows: Committee Member Wheeler expressed that one of the requirements of the National Secretary of Interior historic guidelines is to show some sort of demarcation of the start and stop of the old and new. Paragraph 4 sentence 2 amended as follows: Committee Member Wheeler also suggest that the staggered height will also make it easier to roof since they will not need to feather the roofing material. Committee Member Califf asked if it is the applicant's intention to take the asbestos shingles off of the house now or '^+°~' ~~ +'"'° at a later time. Mr. Hall replied later. Paragraph 6 sentence 1 and 2 amended as follows: The discussion then moved to how the height of the ~~ floor will be achieved. Committee Member Wheeler's preference is to construct a raised thhe wood floor. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 2, 2003 Page 4 Condition 3, sentence 1 amended as follows: 3. Exposed railings that are not covered by a roof are not consistent with the period to the design of the existing residence. Condition 4, sentence 2 amended as follows: Door pattern should be more of the period to of the existing residence. Condition 7 amended as follows: 7. Further study of the eave height of the addition to verify compatibility with existing. DRC 3828-03 Orange Tower pale 6 paragraph 1, sentence 3 amended as follows: The plan is to use painted aluminum and painted to match the current sign. Paragraph 2, sentence 2 amended as follows: Mr. Anderson replied that it will also be aluminum, painted to match the building material. DRC 3830-03 Ford of Orange ~a~e 7, condition 2 amended as follows: 2. Provide ~ a 2 to 2 1/2 des inch wide orange painted stripe behind the neon light. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Jon Califf, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: Leonard Filner MOTION CARRIED City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 2, 2003 Page 5 1. DRC No. 3776-02 -ROBERT MACARTHUR M.D. Proposed two-story, 5,630 sq. ft., medical office building. 396 S. Main Street (north side of Culver Avenue and approximately 150 ft. west of Main Street) Staff Contact: Christopher Carnes, Senior Planner DRC Action: Final Determination Continued from OS-21-3 meeting) Mr. Robert Ader, architect for the applicant, reviewed the revised building and landscaping plans for the proposed medical office building. The revisions were based on the DRC members' previous comments regarding a need for large tree sizes, enlarging some building details for consistency in scale, and adding some trees to provide a variety of tree types. The DRC members reviewed the revised plans and believe the revisions to the landscaping plans resolved their concerns regarding tree sizes and varieties, and the revisions to the building's architectural trim were acceptable. The DRC members and the architect reviewed that the archways shall have stone finish on the undersides and interior, the arbor and trellis shall be spaced away from the building so as not to stain the exterior, and details regarding the staining of the walkways were reviewed. A motion was made by Committee Chair Joe Woollett to approve the project with the following conditions: 1. Final landscaping plans to be reviewed and approved by the City's Landscape Specialist. 2. Final site, building, and landscaping improvements to be completed per plans presented to the Design Review Committee on July 2, 2003. SECOND: Leonard Filner AYES: Jon Califf, Leonard Filner, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: None MOTION CARRIED City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 2, 2003 Page 6 2. DRC No. 3816-03 -THE JENSEN BUILDING Proposal to develop a 2-story, 15,293 sq. ft. office building within Old Towne on a portion of a lot that is currently developed with an antique mall, parking lot, and a Farmer's Market on Thursdays. 143 West Almond Avenue (Old Towne Historic District) Staff Contact: Mario Chavez-Marquez, Assistant Planner DRC Action: Recommendation to the Staff Review Committee Continued from OS-07-03 & OS-21-03 meeting) As with the prior meeting of OS-21-03, due to the fact that two of the Committee Members' Committee Chair Joe Woollett and Committee Member Craig Wheeler) offices are located within 500 feet of the applicant's property (143 W. Almond Avenue), they may not participate in the decision on the property. However, the City Attorney has informed City staff, that under what is called the Rule of Necessity, one of two DRC members can remain in order that a quorum can be established so that DRC can make a decision. At random, Committee Member Wheeler was chosen to remain on to establish a quorum, but he cannot participate in the discussion nor vote to make a recommendation. His vote cannot be used to break a tie. Committee Chair Joe Woollett commented that since he would be leaving the meeting Vice Chair Leonard Filner would be in charge. At 5:45 p.m. Committee Chair Woollett left the room. Susan Secoy, Architect, presented the project. Also present were Dan Jensen, property owner and applicant, and Paul Jensen. Part of her presentation was to address issues from the last DRC meeting. Internally consistent design between the proposed new building and the existing market building. They have gone back and looked at the existing building and it is her belief, as an architect, since it is an existing building they can work with more traditional materials. It also makes sense to break the canopy, use the awnings and start making a gradual transition from the older to the newer. The canopy has been continued on the new building to maintain the linear qualities and the overall. form, bulk and mass. Also being studied are the various sides of the existing building and they are proposing that the entry face Glassell Street with a secondary entrance off of the 12' alleyway/corridor between the two buildings. They would also like to embellish that corridor with the use of a new hardscape and planting materials. They have to have some flexibility with design, as they don't know who the ultimate tenant will be. Proposed Cornice and Brickwork and two diverse elements (How does the one portion of the building relate to the corner portion of the building?). There is embellished brickwork along the top as well as a concrete cornice. Throughout Old Towne you will find a variety of beautiful brickwork. They intend to keep theirs simple but also enhance the same language seen throughout town. Monument Sign. They have studied the existing monument sign, in regards to location, size, and concept of the new proposed sign. They have received information from City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 2, 2003 Page 7 Public Works on how the sign is placed there. They are working with the existing sign, respecting the fact that it is primarily on City property. Part of the planter is on the Jensen property, but they are respecting its placement with the assumption that it will eventually be redesigned and replaced. The building's design works with whatever is there and they have addressed it with a planter in that area. Ms. Secoy asked the Committee for suggestions on what to put into the planter. They would like to have a layered landscaping effect. Ms. Secoy and Mr. Jensen discussed the plans surrounding the Monument Sign. Vice Chair Leonard Filner wanted the meeting opened to the public. Committee Member Jon Califf asked for a summary from staff on where we stand. Staff Member Dan Ryan spoke about the locations of awnings in relationship to transoms. Staff shared pictures of different locations and said that both areas and locations were appropriate. Also looked at was the Radio Shack with a corner entrance, and that it may be possible to develop something that reflects that similar pattern. Most gateway buildings are two stories. Having a gateway building with the higher cornice at the corner would justify having atwo-story building adjacent to the one story Antique Station and would be appropriate as to the architectural style and pattern. Even though there is a difference in height, in that the new building would be higher than the one existing next to it, there is justification where it could be a book end type building. The bookend buildings in the Plaza are all two-story elements and have some defined cornice heights at the entrance. Committee Vice Chair Filner had a question regarding the bookend -does it apply to each corner within the Plaza itself. Staff Member Ryan answered that typically the bookend buildings were at the end of the block. There is some flexibility with the bookend effect. Staff Member Mario Chavez-Marquez prepared a checklist to go over in detail of items to be discussed after the public has spoken. The Hearing was opened to the Public: In Support of Project: Judy Schroeder -Schroeder Studio Gallery - 112 E. Maple Ave. Lisa Ackerman - A & P Collectibles - 151 N. Glassell Barbara deBoom -Chamber of Commerce - 439 E. Chapman Michael Escobedo -Old Towne Orange Plaza Review - 134 S. Glassell Joe Schulte -Antique Mall Treasures & Yesterday -Happy Time - 109 S. Glassell Dennis Caldwell -Chapman Antique Mall - 201 E. Chapman Ave. Janet Crenshaw - OTPA Ms. Secoy also wanted to make sure that the DRC members had received the letters sent and the answer was "yes, that it was part of the package". Committee Member Califf summarized the task of the Committee, after reviewing, is to make a recommendation back to the SRC. It seems the issues boil down to definitions of what a bookend project or a gateway project needs to be. What is approved will be substantially similar City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 2, 2003 Page 8 at least in concept). It all depends on who the tenant is. He asked Staff Member Ryan to walk the Committee through the bookend definition again. Staff Member Ryan stated that on several quadrants on the Plaza, there are bookend buildings Examples: Son Light Church, & P.J.'s Abbey). There are buildings around the Plaza that have two story elements and have a defined entranceway. They landmark the ends of the block in a higher element than the buildings in between, most of those are two story elements. Basically the larger profile building that has larger embellishments, more detail and sets the tone for the block with larger mass and height. Vice Chair Filner spoke of one corner treatment within the Plaza area that is actually lower. Is there anything that says the corner treatment cannot be recessed? This would also entail a definition and transition, as it is an entrance point and identifying feature. He feels that the applicant has already addressed this. Staff Member Ryan used the Masonic Building on the corner as an example. You can tell that the signage is a key way to make the building stand out. Ms. Secoy responded that a lot of the guidelines are very vague. They have studied an angled corner, it's not a 45 degree they are working with, and if you have this kind of competition with the building and the monument sign it loses the beauty of it's simplicity. The other struggle was the reference to the Radio Shack building, which is an Art Deco building (which is not allowed within Old Towne). It does have an angled entrance facing the Plaza Park. This makes sense, as it is a pedestrian friendly environment paying homage to the Plaza, which is the true landmark of Old Towne Orange. The Jensen building is on an edge and at a vehicular intersection. The pedestrian flows around the building but is not crossing over and through and down S. Glassell. The emphasis is placed upon the core. The reason they have designed it this way is this is at the edge and emphasis is upon this special place that marks the center of Old Towne Orange. Vice Chair Filner stated that the reason the above question was posed is by definition something that is strikingly different at that corner. They've recessed it back and changed some architectural elements within it. To him it says "entrance", it's a different feature from the rest of the building. His question is if this is a gateway element can it be recessed as opposed to going out? He wants to make sure the codes are reading right. He has a picture in front of him that shows no identifying feature other than an awning. Staff Member Chavez-Marquez answered that the picture shows an angled entrance to it. Ms. Secoy responded that an identifying feature of the year 2003 may be different than an identifying feature of 1903. They would like to make a statement of where we are in time with this building and still create a timeless piece of architecture that relates contextually with everything else which is there. Mr. Jensen pointed out that verbatim language (from the Design Standards) was used in the designing of the building. He feels that all of the design requirements have been met with this design. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 2, 2003 Page 9 Ms. Secoy brought up another issue of the 30-foot maximum height, which is what they have planned their design within. A comment came back to them that perhaps it should be taller, but that is a violation of the guidelines. Committee Vice Chair Filner confirmed that the parapet was at 30 feet. Committee Member Califf wanted to clarify where he was coming from. He feels that what has been done with the element and the entry is more appropriate than the original plan. He still feels there are too many entries and struggles with the primary entry being somewhat de- emphasized. He feels that the monument sign works with the way they have dealt with it. Ms. Secoy added that ideally they would love to have one tenant in the building, which would help with the number of entries into the building. Committee Member Califf asked if they saw an opportunity how to treat the entry and do something to emphasize it more without redoing the whole concept for that area. Ms. Secoy thinks that they could keep the rhythm of the metal rods that continue on Glassell and carry it around to the entry itself. She also spoke to Mr. Escobedo about adding glass above the main door to add emphasis to that entrance. It could also be signage. With any mixed-use building it has to be designed to be flexible. Vice Chair Filner asked that they move on to the rear elevation. Committee Member Chavez-Marquez responded they would be discussing the West side of the building (back of building). Incorporate additional windows, doors, or a trellis. One of the Design Standards calls out to have a secondary entrance to a building, specifically to the rear of the building. There was a discussion of exactly which book of Design Standards the above requirement came from and a discussion of the rear entrance and defining that it is a service entrance. The rear entrances are not meant to be used as access points into the stores. There is an emergency exit provided. Ms. Secoy commented that if you study South and North Glassell, and East and West Chapman, the rear of the building is clearly the rear of the building. There is no confusion as to where you enter into the stores. The attempt of the applicant is to have service exits and access to the back of the building as designed. For security purposes you do not want a flow through the store. Vice Chair Filner asked about the service entrance and if any plants, or shrubs would be planted there. Staff Member Chavez-Marquez stated that this was one of the requests in the staff report, that something be incorporated on the blank wall. The applicant asked if they were open to landscaping in this area to which the answer was yes. Vice Chair Filner is requesting that something be planned there which could be trained and away from the wall, so it doesn't damage the wall. Committee Member Califf feels the planter is deep enough to put something there. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 2, 2003 Page 10 Committee Member Califf touched briefly on the entrances, and the rear of the building, and on the canopies. Vice Chair Filner next wanted to discuss the trash service, and utility closets design and exactly what staff was referring to with that. Staff Member Chavez-Marquez stated the applicant had not provided any detail on that and that's what they are asking for. Ms. Secoy answered that there is not a trash enclosure with the new building; it is with the existing building. Mr. Jensen pointed out the location on the plans. This is the proposed location of the new trash enclosure (where the existing is now). They know that they will have to build a trash enclosure and have no problem with that. Staff Member Chavez-Marquez pointed out that staff had not yet received a detail of the trash enclosure (it is shown on the elevations) and it needs to be presented as part of the project. Vice Chair Filner commented that on the plan there is a planter on each side with the gate on the parking lot side. It's far enough back from the street on the Olive side with the other landscaping it shouldn't be a problem. Next item of concern was the proposed stucco finish of the lower portion of the building. Ms. Secoy answered that as shown in the materials board from the last meeting it is concrete not stucco. Throughout Old Towne you see a little bit of everything -tile or wood, etc. Staff Member Ryan mentioned that at the last meeting there was discussion of two separate design elements. Wanted to know how those had been addressed to fit together. Committee Member Califf answered that he was the one who originally brought up this concern and he feels big strides have been made in dealing with this issue. It is not the typical corner building and given the design issues that need to be wrestled with, this current scheme adequately addresses his concerns. Vice Chair Filner added that in context with all that is going on at the corner (monument sign, location, etc.) the architect has used a style change to help identify the corner element while at the same time incorporating some of the Old Towne historic materials throughout the whole building. He feels that in looking at the entire picture it all works and he does not have a problem with the modernism. Ms. Secoy said the reason they did keep the same height throughout the whole building is to try to have a continuity of the building and yet make a statement with the corner. Next to be discussed was the site plan. The site plan hasn't been changed but there is a code that requires more trees. Vice Chair Filner asked how this was going to be addressed. He continued by pointing out on the plans suggestions from staff. Mr. Jensen addressed each of the staff's concerns by pointing at the plans hanging on the wall. Points of interest were as follows: City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 2, 2003 Page 11 Vehicular traffic Extra parking Concrete alleyway Planter Wheel stops Landscaping Staff Member Chavez-Marquez commented that the applicant is short on required landscaping and addressed some of the concerns regarding traffic, and vehicular circulation. Everyone agrees they would rather have a landscape finger on the row of the parking spaces because it protects the parked vehicles. The applicant also needs to meet the landscape requirements in order to get additional landscape; the landscape planter needs to be carried all the way through. If planters are already there, it will be a tripping hazard no matter. In regards to the loading area, the fire trucks have a 25-foot wide space to go through so it meets the requirements. An extensive discussion on landscaping, trees and parking followed. In ending the parking discussion Staff Member Chavez-Marquez said what the City is looking for is more parking spaces but at the same time they want to enhance the corner, which is the gateway into the Downtown Plaza District. Staff wants the additional parking and justification for the reduced landscaping standards. The amount of required trees is 76 and what I s showing on the plans is 18 with 3 added trees on street parkways which the applicant will get credit for. Staff also recommends an increase in the size of the trees. All that is proposed are 15-gallon and 24-inch box trees. Staff is requesting the size of the trees and box size be increased as they realize the applicant will be unable to meet the requirement of 76 trees. Vice Chair Filner asked the applicant if he had any problems going to a larger size tree. Mr. Jensen said no and said they would do whatever it takes. A discussion followed about different types of trees that could be planted. Committee Member Califf had some closing thoughts. Overall he is comfortable with what has been done. He feels the main entry door portal is a weak element but understands there are other entries. This is an area he hopes the applicant will address. He is also a little uncomfortable with the way the canopy is handled going around the corner and the treatmentlplacement of the doors. There are a lot of details to still be worked out such as landscaping and issues with SRC. The applicant has improved the concept for the Antique Station and how it's going to work. He echo's the support of the Plaza business people of what is being done in terms of the use and upgrading the parking lot. Vice Chair Filner stated a lot of the issues and concerns he had from the last presentation have been answered and overall he likes the direction and architecture. There are a lot of concerns with the landscaping, getting everything to work, getting the right plant materials especially around the building. This really hasn't been addressed on the landscape plan. He will look at that later. He likes what has been done with the alley between the Antique Station and the new building. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 2, 2003 Page 12 A motion was made by Committee Member Leonard Filner to recommend this project go back to SRC and that the project complies with all of the historic standards and guidelines. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: RECUSED: ABSTAINED: Jon Califf Jon Califf, Leonard Filner None None Joe Woollett Craig Wheeler MOTION CARRIED City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 2, 2003 Page 13 3. DRC No. 3827-03 -SHAWN & JANELLE HALL Proposed 498 sq.ft. addition at the rear of an existing 1905 Gable Roof Cottage. 357 N. Shaffer Street (Old Towne Historic District) Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, Senior Planner -Historic Preservation DRC Action: Final Determination Continued from 06/18/03 meeting.) Shawn and Janelle Hall, applicants, presented the project. Mr. Hall stated that from the previous DRC meeting (6/18/03), there were two major items that needed to be addressed. 1) Having a clear line of demarcation between the existing house and the addition. They have lowered the adjoining gable where it will meet the existing by 6". In regards to the eaves -the pitch has been slightly changed on the addition portion so that by the time it reaches the eave on the edge, it would be lined up. Elevation plans were shown to the Committee. 2) More detail on the modifications to the front porch. Previously they were going to square off the existing front porch, but they have gone with Committee Member Wheeler's suggestion of cutting off the existing front porch so that it would only be a portion underneath the existing overhang. Janet Crenshaw, 464 N. Shaffer -Felt that all of the previous issues have been addressed and she likes the change in the porch. Committee Member Jon Califf asked if the 6" drop in the roof gives them enough room to clear the barge on the end of the gable. Mr. Ryan didn't think it does and Committee Chair Joe Woollett expressed his confusion on how this works. Committee Member Califf explained what was expected by looking at the plans. Committee Member Craig Wheeler was in hopes the gable was going to go down further so it would clear the barge. He feels that matching the eaves but dropping the ridge is going to be a mistake because it will look like an "accident". Discussed at the last meeting was dropping everything (the eaves and the plate on each side) so everything would be lower. He also didn't see where any change in the plane of the wall was made. All that was changed was the ridge itself. The applicant pointed out on the plans the other changes that had been made. Committee Member Wheeler asked the applicant if they had decided how they were going to do the floor and if the foundation wall will match the existing. Mr. Hall answered they were going to do it on slab raised to make it continuous and that the foundation wall would match. Mr. Hall also addressed another previous concern regarding alternative ventilation if needed. The applicant feels that a dormer style venting would be reasonable and they will have the City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 2, 2003 Page 14 matching gable venting on each of the gables. They also added the post (for support on the overhang) on the rear porch. A motion was made by Committee Member Craig Wheeler to approve the project with the following conditions: 1. That the roof of the transition portion between the existing home and major portion of the new construction be lowered at least 12 inches, so there is a clear line of demarcation in the roof. Also, that the plate line be lowered with it so that the roof pitch of the connecting section is the same pitch as the existing house. 2. That the recessed doors shown to provide a vertical line of demarcation may be replaced with non-recessed wall planes separated with a trim board to match corner boards of the existing structure. SECOND: Jon Califf AYES: Jon Califf, Leonard Filner, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: None MOTION CARRIED N:\C D D\P L N G\Council Commissions Committees\DRC\DRC 07-02-03 drem.doc