Loading...
1995-10-18 Final DRC MinutesCity of Orange Design Review Board M I N U T E S for Wednesday, October 18, 1995 Board Members Present Board Members Absent Steven G. McHarris Steven C. Prothero, Chair Beau Shigetomi Erika Wolfe None Staff in Attendance: Jim Donovan, Associate Planner & Secretary Howard Morris, Landscape Coordinator Dan Ryan, Senior Planner /Historic Preservation The board met for an administrative session beginning at approximately 4:00 P.M. This meeting adjourned at approximately 7:15 P.M. Regular Session - S: 00 P.M. Mr. Prothero (Chair) started the meeting, and asked for comments about meeting minutes from October 4, 1995. Board members indicated that no changes should be made to minutes. MOTION by Beau Shigetomi to approve meeting minutes as recorded. SECOND: Steve McHams AYES: Steve McHarris, Steve Prothero, Beau Shigetomi & Erika. Wolfe NOES: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED Jim Donovan (staff reported that there are two items that have been withdrawn by applicants, and will be rescheduled for review on November 8, 1995. Those items include No. 1 (D.R.B. 3099, Wild West Center, Kurt Donat, Architect) and No. 2 (D.R.B. 3101, Texaco-Subway). City of Orange • Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for October 18, 1995 Page 2 Consent Calendar - Mr. Prothero (Chair) asked whether there were any proposals that are sufficiently comprehensive and require no discussion with applicants before a motion can be made for approval. Ms. Wolfe: Item No. 6 (D.R.B. 3109) Yarco International; the sign proposal looks adequate, and satisfies code criteria, except that the sign must include the property address within the display. Mr. Shigetomi also recommends that the applicant replace Pyrus kawakamii on the landscape planting plan, to a blight- resistant species, such as Pyrus calleryana. Joe Kuttel was there to represent Yarco, with Doug Hallam (of Signs and Services). Mr. Kuttel asked if the property address is mandatory. Ms. Wolfe: Yes, according to the building security ordinance. MOTION by Erika Wolfe to approve the proposal, so long as plans are revised to include the property address. SECOND: Steve McHarris AYES: Steve McHarris, Steve Prothero, Beau Shigetomi & Erika Wolfe NOES: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED There were no other motions made at this time. City of Orange • Design Review Board MeetingMinutes for October 18, 1995 Page 3 (Item No. 3) DRB 3091 Primary Care Doctors of Landscape and irrigation plans for apreviously-approved Orange County medical office building 1 18 N. Cambridge St. Office Professional District (O-P) Closson 8~ Closson, Inc. Old Towne District The applicant was represented by Dave Closson, Randy Gates (General Contractor) and Pete Morris (Architect). Plans have been revised since they were originally distributed to the board members in packets. Mr. Closson discussed how plans would be modified. The applicant feels that some of the trees should be removed for better visibility of the signs. Mr. Shigetomi: The proposal is not adequate. There are no trees proposed within the required yard along Chapman Avenue, which is a primary arterial highway, and the more significant street frontage of this parcel. More trees will have to be added to existing planters in the parking area, as well. Mr. Prothero: There are so many signs on the premises (including four wall signs and a freestanding sign), he doubts that visibility of any one sign will be limited by trees when viewed from oblique angles. Mr. McHarris: The architecture (of the building) is rather simple. As he indicated in prior review, the landscape palette would be an important consideration in the final approval of this project. Mr. Gates did not recall a requirement being stated that trees should be planted, in the preliminary review. Mr. Shigetomi: The applicants previously stated that existing trees would be replaced, not removed. There should be one tree planted for every one that is removed. He pointed to several planters that contain no trees on the revised plan, only low-growing shrubs and groundcover. Mr. Gates had several reasons why trees have been eliminated from the initial proposal. Curbing and paved areas have been broken by roots. The primary entrance to the building is located on the rear elevation, adjacent to the parking facility. This entrance should remain visible from Cambridge Street. He feels that they have compensated by planting trees in the parking area along the western property line. He anticipated problems in the location of a water main, and conflict with one of the tree planting requirements (near the Cambridge Street entrance). The Fire Department water connection crosses underground. He did not think they would allow a tree at this location. Howard Moms (staff volunteered that he would seek to resolve conflict between planting requirements and technical issues with the Fire Department. (Janna Doty, Fire Safety Specialist, later stated that there would be no conflict between the tree planting plan and water line locations.) Peter Morris and Dave Closson asked the board what they would recommend in revision. Mr. Shigetomi: The variety of the tree is not so important as the minimal number and spacing. The board has no problem with aloes-growing tree, such as the Photinia proposed on the plan. If the applicants think (Continued on a following page) City of Orange • Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for October 18, 1995 Page 4 (Continued from a previous page) visibility is a problem, taller growing trees should not necessarily be ruled out. The monument sign, for example, would remain visible beneath the canopy of any taller tree. He marked seven locations where trees should be added on the landscape plan: three in the front yard on Chapman; one in the side yard on Cambridge; and three in a continuous planter within the parking area, near the northwest comer of the building. He would support the approval of plans if those changes are made. Howard Morris: Are you saying that you want to see this proposal come back before the board? (General agreement among members) MOTION by Erika Wolfe to approve this plan as a preliminary proposal (accepting general distribution of landscape planters, ground cover and the irrigation system), subject to an upgrade in the number of trees, a revision that should be reviewed and approved by the D.R.B. SECOND: Beau Shigetomi AYES: Steve McHarris, Steve Prothero, Beau Shigetomi & Erika Wolfe NOES: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED City of Orange • Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for October 18, 1995 Page S Item No. 41 DRB 3092 The Taco Co. (EI Conejo, Inc.) Landscape and irrigation plans for adrive-through restaurant 1009 N. Tustin St. Limited Business District (C-1) Jeff Cathcart, Tustin Street Redevelopment Project Area Landscape Architect No representative was present for discussion. Mr. Prothero asked the staff whether changes had been made according to preliminary review. Specifically, the landscaped buffer between the front property line and the first parking space was to be increased, near the drive approach, to add stacking room for inbound vehicles. Jim Donovan (staff): Landscaped area was added by eliminating one parking space, and increasing the overall width of the planter (beyond the 10-foot required yard) to a total dimension of 20 feet from the front property line. Mr. McHams questioned whether palm trees would be adequate planting material, as the only tree proposed within landscape planters. Mr. Shigetomi did not think so -- something with a leafy head, or full crown, should be used. If there is a theme intended to complement the architecture (or the menu), Mr. McHarris felt that other trees would be more appropriate (such as the Mexican Palo Verde). Palm trees are tropical. Mr. Prothero and Mr. Shigetomi agreed. Mr. McHarris also asked Mr. Prothero whether changes to planted areas along the drive aisle satisfied his concerns from prior review. Mr. Prothero: Yes, but the minor amount of landscaping at the interior corner of the building is of little benefit. For practical purposes, the space between the curb and the wall should probably be hardscaped, rather than landscaped. Other board members agreed. Mr. Shigetomi marked plans to suggest the extent of hardscaping, approximately 2'-0" south of the northwest corner of the building. He also questioned whether so much concrete was necessary across the front of the building. It looks like a walkway, but it leads to nowhere. This concreted area, which is west of the west elevation, should be eliminated as hardscape, and the landscape plans revised accordingly. Since there was no project representative present to discuss these matters, review of this item was continued until the next meeting, on November 8, 1995. No motion was made and no action taken. The staff was asked to report the board members' concerns to the applicant. City of Orange • Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for October 18, 1995 Page 6 (Item No. 5) DRB 3108 The Good Guys Freestanding sign 146 S. Main St. General Business District (C-2) Gannon Design Southwest Redevelopment Project Area The applicant was represented by Bob Mickelson, consultant. He stated that The Good Guys is suffering from a lack of visibility, and needs a bigger pylon sign at this location. There are some existing monument signs, but they are rather small, and shared with three other tenants. Several board members expressed a concern about the height of this proposal (22'-0"). How is this possible in view of the city's "universal" height limit of 15'-0"? Jim Donovan (staff) explained that the Zoning Administrator approved a variance request to allow construction of the sign to this height. That opinion represents specific land use issues that the Design Review Board is not necessarily bound to observe in their review. However, the board should know that the applicant had originally proposed a pylon sign to a height 45'-0", within the landscaped area at the corner, which was developed as part of the redevelopment plan. The sign has been relocated away from that area and reduced in size, and therefore represents a substantial compromise. Mr. Mickelson: This is the "anchor tenant" for the shopping center, and the sign is important to the success of the business. The store does not do well, compared to other locations. Mr. Prothero: What happens if The Good Guys were to move out? Dces the sign come down? Mr. Mickelson: Not likely. We could make it a condition of approval that any subsequent replacement panel be reviewed by D.R.B. Jim Donovan. Once the structure is permitted, the plastic panel can be replaced as a matter of regular maintenance, according to the sign code. Mr. Shigetomi: It is a large display area. Will the background be opaque? Mr. Mickelson: Yes, if that is a condition of approval. That is a requirement that could be extended into the future, and applied to replacement panels for subsequent tenants. He would have to discuss such a requirement with the client before he could make any promises... Mr. Prothero: The type looks somewhat crowded, or enlarged a bit too much in proportion to the sign. He would like to see that it be reduced slightly. Mr. Mickelson: The configuration of the wording and type style is part of the corporate trademark. His client may be reluctant to modify the proposal. If there are any problems in satisfying such requirements (opaque background, reduction of the image), he will return the board and discuss the matter more fully. (Continued on a following page) City of Orange • Design Review Board MeetingMinutes for October 18, 1995 Page 7 (Continued from a previous page) MOTION by Steve Prothero to approve the proposal if a buffer is created within background, so the image is reduced to approximately 95% of the present size. An opaque background shall also be provided. SECOND: Beau Shigetomi AYES: Steve McHarris, Steve Prothero, Beau Shigetomi & Erika. Wolfe NOES: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED City of Orange • Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for October 18, 1995 Page 8 (Item No. 7) DRB 31 10 Recommendation to the Planning Commission Enterprise Car Sales Used car sales facility 1925 N. Tustin St. Limited Business District (C-TR) John Dardashti, Architect Tustin Street Redevelopment Project Area Jim Donovan (staff) explained what development standards are applied in review of an automotive sales facility. The applicant requests a waiver of those standards, and will ask the Planning Commission to find that the proposal is similar to a new car sales facility, and grant approval of a C.U.P. The applicant was represented by Pete Wisner and John Dardashti. They explained the nature of the development and operation of the business more fully. Photographs of the property were reviewed. Mr. Wisner described the use as similar to a new car sales facility in that the cars are approximately 2 years old, but the city's requirement to provide a showroom and repair facility is somewhat irrelevant to their operation. Mr. Prothero (Chair): Probably what is more germane to the board's focus of review are the landscape requirements, or the mitigation if those requirements are waived. Mr. Shigetomi was concerned about the lack of landscaping. There is only 4 feet in between curbs in the planter across the front yard, including potential bumper overhang. Nothing but slow-growing groundcover or turf will survive within the back 2 feet. Car dealers should have a 15-foot landscaped setback, but the request goes beyond a waiver of that standard, to below the standard setback of 10 feet for all other development. The city normally requires a hedge or a berm to screen a parking facility that abuts a public right of way. Mr. Wisner: But this is not a typical use or a normal situation in that car sales agencies are compelled to exhibit the merchandise. He has visited other sales agencies around town, and finds that none satisfy the city's landscape standards, or provide a screen hedge. Mr. Dardashti: With respect to the issue of bumper overhang, the cars will be parked by employees, not by customers. Employees will make sure that cars do not interfere with landscaping. Mr. Prothero: Beyond the landscape proposed at the front, what I see is a sea of asphalt. Tustin Street is a redevelopment project area. This level of development is inconsistent with city standards and recent development in the vicinity. ...What are you proposing for security purposes? The plan shows the pavement ending along southern property line. Is there a fencing plan? Mr. Wisner: There is no need for a fence. Security in this area is not considered a problem. Mr. Prothero asked that the applicants describe the building. ('The plan has no call-out's to indicate building materials.) Mr. Dardashti said it would be a wood-framed building, with stucco finish, painted riglets, tempered glass with anodized aluminum frames. Mr. Prothero expressed an opinion that the building plans are rather conventional, and there is little that relates to design, except the landscape. (Continued on a following page) City of Orange • Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for October 18, 1995 Page 9 (Continued from a previous page) Mr. Shigetomi said that he could not understand why the applicant would want the site to look like this, to project such an image to the community. You would see nothing but asphalt, cars, and a box. At minimum, he recommends small islands at ends of each row of parking spaces that are located at the interior of the site, and a continuous planter along the southern property line. He would like to see some trees used on the property. Mr. Wisner: Trees present a management problem in that resident birds tend to sully the product. Mr. Shigetomi agreed. He has worked with car dealers in the past as a landscape architect. They have generally been reluctant to use trees within the landscape. He suggested that queen palm trees be planted instead of trees with a leafy crown. Birds won't nest within palm fronds. Mr. Wisner volunteered that more landscaping could be provided across the front, and that he is not necessarily opposed to adding the planters that were recommended. Mr. Shigetomi asked whether Mr. Wisner would oppose the use of trees with a leafy crown in planters at each end of the row of parking spaces adjacent to the front of the building. If these are short-term customer parking spaces, birds should not be such a nuisance. (Mr. Wisner agreed.) MOTION by Steve Prothero to recommend approval of building elevations as submitted, and to recommend the following conditions of approval as minimal, if the Planning Commission finds that approval of a variance and conditional use permit should be granted: 1. The width of the planter along the front of the property will be increased from 4'-0" to 6'-0" (minimum inside clearance between curbs) to provide more substantial landscaping. The planting palette may include aloes-growing groundcover (such as Star Jasmine), but should also include palm trees. 2. Planters with palm trees will be added at the ends of each row of parking spaces that are located within the interior of the site. Two planters at each end of the customer parking area, at the front of the building, will include a species with a leafy crown in each planter. The minimum inside clearance between curbs shall be 3'-0". 3. A continuous planter shall be provided along the south edge of the property, which should also include palm trees, and a minimum width of 3'-0". 'This planter may be interrupted at intervals for egress across the property line, and drainage swales as needed. 4. The applicant will return to D.R.B. with a final landscape plans, to include planter modifications as discussed, and a sign proposal. SECOND: Erika Wolfe AYES: Steve McHarris, Steve Prothero, Beau Shigetomi & Erika Wolfe NOES: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED City of Orange • Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for October 18, 1995 Page 10 (Item No. 8) DRB 31 1 1 Recommendation to the Planning Commission Southern California 3-story community care facility for the elderly, with request Presbyterian Homes to change zone to Multi-Family Residential District (R-3) 1515 E. Taft Ave. Single Family Residential District (R-1-8) Lantz-Boggio Architects P.C. The applicant was represented by Benjamin Beckler, Marilyn Kennedy, Jerry Dingivan, Dennis Boggio (Architect) & Bob Mickelson. Mr. Prothero announced that he would abstain from this review, due to a potential conflict of interest. Dennis Boggio discussed scale, planned relief in bulk, variations in the shape of building footprint that will create different planes in elevations, and rustication in finish materials. He presented building material samples, which were based upon his survey of the local architectural environment. A conceptual landscape plan was included within the board members' packets. He also presented photographs of other completed projects, and similar residential structures in Orange (such as the Ronald McDonald House). He discussed the benefits of a three-story structure, instead of two. If building can go upward, there are more opportunities to plan architectural relief, and provide modulation in building elevations. Mr. Beckler provided background information on the corporation, and discussed projects at other locations in southern California. Mr. McHarris noted an attempt to provide a stepped appearance to the front elevation. (Mr. Boggio agreed) Ms. Wolfe expressed an appreciation that the building addresses the street so well. The architectural proportions are properly oriented to the project site, and the building fronts upon the narrow portion, which helps improve the residential character of the project. She also appreciated the front porch. Mr. McHarris agreed. The structure is not exactly characteristic of local development, but appropriate in the sense that they have made the building fit the site well, much like a large estate. The architect succeeded as much as possible in breaking down the mass of the structure. The scale of these drawings is quite small. Would the board see a final submittal? He reminded the applicants representatives that landscape enhancements will have to be submitted for review and approval. Mr. Boggio will have to prepare more detailed plans for construction, if the project is approved. He would make them available at that time. MOTION by Erika Wolfe to recommend the approval of design elements (site plan, building elevations and conceptual landscaping) for the application seeking approval of a conditional use permit to allow the land use and greater structural height. SECOND: Steve McHarris AYES: Steve McHarris, Beau Shigetomi & Erika Wolfe NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Steve Prothero MOTION CARRIED