Loading...
02-06-2019 DRC MinutesCITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES – FINAL February 6, 2019 Committee Members Present: Tim McCormack - Chair Robert Imboden Carol Fox Anne McDermott Mary Anne Skorpanich Staff in Attendance: Bill Crouch, Community Development Director Marissa Moshier, Historic Preservation Planner Monique Schwartz, Associate Planner Kelly Ribuffo, Associate Planner Simonne Fannin, Recording Secretary Administrative Session – 5:05 Chair McCormack opened the Administrative Session at 5:05 p.m. Chair McCormack inquired if there was any Policy or Procedural information. Ms. Moshier indicated there was none. Ms. Moshier clarified the procedures for denial, final determination, and continuance for the Committee Members. Committee Member Skorpanich informed the Committee Members that the California Preservation Foundation will provide a preservation law webinar series on March 19, 2019. Chair McCormack discussed his findings on the new LED streetlights that were installed. Ms. Moshier stated the street light replacement was done through a grant program with Southern California Edison and Public Works is looking into the parameters of the grant and if there is any flexibility to change out the bulbs. Committee Member Imboden informed the Committee that there the California Preservation foundation will hold their annual spring conference in Palm Springs on May 8th through the 12th. He and Ms. Moshier will be part of a panel discussion on the Eichler homes. He also informed the Committee that he will be asking for their assistance with an Eichler home tour that will occur in the city on the 18th and 19th of May. Committee Members reviewed the Design Review Committee minutes for December 19, 2019. City of Orange – Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for February 6, 2019 Page 2 of 14 Committee Member McDermott made a motion to close the Administrative Session of the Design Review Committee meeting. SECOND: Skorpanich. AYES: Imboden, McCormack, Fox, McDermott, and Skorpanich. NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION CARRIED. Administrative Session adjourned at 5:29 p.m. Regular Session – 5:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: All Committee Members were present. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Opportunity for Members of the public to address the Design Review Committee on matters not listed on the Agenda. There were no speakers. CONSENT ITEMS: (1) APPROVAL OF MINUTES DECEMBER 19, 2019 Committee Member Skorpanich made a motion to approve the minutes from the Design Review Committee meeting of December 19, 2018, as emended during the discussion at the Administrative Session. SECOND: Fox AYES: Fox, Imboden, McCormack, Skorpanich, and McDermott NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange – Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for February 6, 2019 Page 3 of 14 AGENDA ITEMS: Committee Business: (2) ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR Committee Member Fox made a motion to appoint Anne McDermott as Chair of the Design Review Committee. SECOND: Imboden AYES: Fox, Imboden, McCormack, Skorpanich, and McDermott NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Committee Member McDermott made a motion to appoint Mary Anne Skorpanich as Vice Chair of the Design Review Committee. SECOND: Imboden AYES: Fox, Imboden, McCormack, Skorpanich, and McDermott NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Continued Items: None City of Orange – Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for February 6, 2019 Page 4 of 14 New Agenda Items: (3) DRC No. 4939-18 - ORANGE EXPRESS CAR WASH  A proposal to redevelop an existing 1.09 acre site with a new automated express carwash, and related site improvements.  387 N. Tustin Street  Staff Contact: Monique Schwartz, 714-744-7224, mschwartz@cityoforange.org  DRC Action: Preliminary Review. Monique Schwartz, Associate Planner, provided an overview of the carwash renovation consistent with the staff report. Chair McCormack invited the applicant to step forward. Jefferson Joy, architect for the project, approached and stated the existing carwash is currently 167 feet long and is single-story with 16-18 foot towers; however the overall length of the carwash is still to be determined depending on what they will do with the existing signage. He explained the bright red color is to create a car racing feel. He added that the existing building is red and will now be a brighter red. Chair McCormack opened the item to the public for comments. There were no speakers. Committee questions and comments:  The Committee asked if there are two or three bays. Ms. Schwartz responded that they revised the design and there are only two bays.  The Committee asked if there will be a striping program on the pavement as part of the signage. Mr. Joy responded yes.  The Committee asked if the paving material will be asphalt. Mr. Joy responded that the footprint of the building and parking will remain the same for the existing carwash; new concrete will be added on to the extension.  A Committee is concerned about the existing concrete and the addition of new concrete because it can subconsciously signal a change in direction.  The Committee asked how high the lights are and if they have any shielding.  The Committee asked for clarification on the up lighting and which building plane it is intended to light. They also asked if the clock will be lit.  The Committee asked about the cross hatched area on the plans. Ms. Schwartz responded that the cross hatching denotes an existing underground easement that cannot be built over with a structure.  The Committee asked why this project does not fall within the Tustin Street Design Standards. Ms. Schwartz responded that this particular location is not within the area that is subject to those standards.  The Committee asked if the applicant examined the sight lines on the East into the residential neighbors.  The Committee asked if the Podocarpus was intended as a hedge. City of Orange – Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for February 6, 2019 Page 5 of 14  Will the second-story parapet be enough to shield rooftop equipment? Erica Nelles, architect for the applicant, responded all of the equipment will be on the ground behind the building.  The Committee asked if the driveway will be reduced. Mr. Joy responded that it will be smaller to accommodate parking and landscaping.  The Committee asked if the applicant will be submitting a signage plan so they can make sure signs are lit and plants are not blocking the signs or lights. Ms. Schwartz stated they will bring the signage package back to the DRC for review.  The Committee noted that the concept of vibrant colors and speed/race analogy is good; however it does not fit in this development context. The concept is pushed too far and there is too much going on.  The Committee commented that roof sheds could be calmer and a little flatter.  They would like to see a more simplified trash enclosure and suggested using stacked bond with joints that are lined up.  There are competing design vocabularies with the ancillary structures.  The pay station is a simple, elegant structure and calmer than the main structure. A greater consistency could be brought together.  The structure is an intriguing art form; however the size and style is not appropriate on Tustin Street and the design does not integrate well in this location. It is a long building, close to the street frontage and needs to be handled carefully. There is too much bulk very close to the street and sidewalk. The human scale also needs to be addressed.  The Committee would like to see more contextual information.  The Committee is concerned that the red will fade.  The Committee is has concerns about the highest portion of the building which takes it over the top.  The Committee feels the landscape is too shallow, in-depth, against the residential neighbors, and also noted that it would be nice to get landscape architects to go beyond desert landscape and drought tolerant landscaping because there are number of plants that are suitable to Southern California without giving them a desert landscape.  The Committee would like to have the applicant explore the notion of using the location of the King palms along with the street trees and incorporate some design form into the street frontage landscaping. Possibly repeat another King palm to make the landscape a little stronger by having the King palms be part of a team, rather than be part of the street.  There is a disconnect between the planting plans and the renderings.  The roof forms, as proposed, will probably not end up as pure as what is shown on the drawings.  The Committee would like to see clear drawings for the canopies and pay station.  The linearity of the landscape design is distracting and competes with the architecture's strong nature; the landscape should be made stronger and bolder.  The Committee is sensitive to light fixtures; particularly with the visibility of the point source.  The Committee would like to see the existing site plans when the applicant returns. Committee Member Imboden commented that they probably should be asking for more contextual information from future applicants. City of Orange – Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for February 6, 2019 Page 6 of 14 Chair McCormack advised the applicant Committee has made comments and recommendations and the applicant should return with more information on the vacuum stalls, pay station, exterior lighting, landscape and signage plan. Bill Crouch, Community Development Director asked the applicant to bring back elevations of neighboring buildings when he returns in order for the DRC to get a better idea on context. City of Orange – Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for February 6, 2019 Page 7 of 14 (4) DRC No. 4952-18 CATLIN CULVER RESIDENCE  A proposal to reconstruct a demolished service porch and make other exterior alterations to an existing single-family residence.  585 E. Culver Avenue  Staff Contact: Ms. Ribuffo, 714-744-7223, kribuffo@cityoforange.org  DRC Action: Final Determination Ms. Ribuffo, Associate Planner provided an overview of the project consistent with the staff report. Chair McCormack invited the applicant to step forward asked if she had anything to add. Tina Catlin, owner of the property, approached and provided a photograph of the types of windows for the Committee's review. She explained the house was in very poor condition when she purchased the property. She stated she did not remove the actual structure around the w all of the original porch because she wants to rebuild it to what it was with the parapet wall. She has put a lot money into the home and she purchased the new windows. She thought they were historically correct and would like to use them and wants know why it is such a major issue. Ms. Catlin stated the prior owner had the Mills Act contract 10 years ago and did not do any of the work, so she does not know how they qualified for tax relief. She has been told that if she does not correct the windows, she will not receive the tax relief. She is spending approximately $100,000 on the inside and outside of the home to restore it to its historical design. The Committee asked if the intention is to build the porch back to the way it was because the plans that have been provided to the DRC do not include the parapet wall. Ms. Catlin said there will be a parapet wall; she did not realize it was not on the plan. Chair McCormack opened the public comment portion of the meeting. Jeff Frankel, representative with Old Town Preservation Association spoke in opposition and is in agreement with staff's denial of the project. He was involved in the previous project in 2008 and is not sure if it was built to approved plans. The Sanborn maps are not conclusive evidence that something was ever there. The windows should be wood and installed like a Mediterranean style home. Mr. Frankel stated the Mills contracts are evergreen and do not expire unless the owner cancels it. A violation of the contract may impose a 12.5% penalty of the current value of the home. Chair McCormack closed the public comment portion of the meeting and brought it back to the Committee for deliberation. Committee questions and comments:  The Committee was not clear about the windows in the addition versus the remainder of the house; what is there now and what the intention is. Ms. Ribuffo responded that the applicant's submittal was to only replace the vinyl sliding windows in the main portion of the original footprint of the residence. The applicant does not intend to change the existing windows in the addition that were installed per plans that were approved in 2007. T he addition's City of Orange – Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for February 6, 2019 Page 8 of 14 windows are not double hung like the main residence; they are wood frame windows that are consistent with the design that was approved.  The Committee agreed that all the windows need further investigation and need to be detailed on the plans in order for them to be approved.  The staff reports asks that the Committee review the Development Standards for the R-16 zoning district; however the plans indicate it is an R-2 multi-family occupancy use. Ms. Ribuffo responded the correct zone is R-16; with the square footage of the porch on the back, it barely meets the floor area ratio requirements for the zone. It will remain a single-family home.  The property owner purchased the property with an existing Mills Act contract which contained specific obligations and the Committee does not understand why the applicant purchased the windows, and did a partial demolition and reconstruction without speaking to the City first.  The Committee is not clear if the windows that have been purchased fit the existing openings of the historic windows. Ms. Ribuffo responded that staff is not sure how the dimensions for the proposed replacement windows were obtained given that investigative work had not been done on all the openings to determine the extent that they were infilled.  The Committee stated they do not have any detail as to how that installation would happen in terms of where the window meets the stucco and what kind of trim might be used. Ms. Ribuffo stated the applicant provided some details on sheet A-1.  The Committee noted a 1x4 trim on the plans; however the historic photo does not appear to have 4 inch trim boards applied around the exterior.  The Committee agreed that it seems as though the applicant is asking to make changes to a historic property that is under a Mills Act agreement which requires it to comply with the Secretary of Interior Standards, yet the windows in the details that are shown do not comply with the Secretary of Interior standards. The Committee is not sure how they can make the findings to approve it.  The Committee stated the porch has conflicting information and agreed that the Sanborn maps cannot be used as evidence. The porch lacks integrity; it has been taken apart and rebuilt.  The Committee is not sure how they can approve a design when the applicant has confirmed that the drawings do not reflect what is in front of the Committee.  The Committee agreed there are too many unanswered questions and they are not able to approve the project and would prefer to continue it instead of denying it so that the project can still move forward.  The Committee asked if the work plan submitted by the owner was before or after Code Enforcement took action. Ms. Ribuffo stated it was done after; staff requested that it be submitted as part of the Design Review Committee application knowing that the contract's rehabilitation plan only went to 2017.  The Committee is dismayed when work proceeds without following the legal process to obtain permits and submitting the proper historic design standard plans. If it had been done, the applicant would not have had to lay out such an expense. Notification of the Mills Act contract had to have been provided during escrow and she would have known about the expectations.  The Committee asked the applicant if the pictures of the windows that she provided to the Committee this evening is the style she intends to use. Ms. Catlin responded that she went to the contractor's home on Pine Street who has the same style Mediterranean home. She City of Orange – Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for February 6, 2019 Page 9 of 14 purchased the same windows that he had on his home because she thought they were an exact match. She explained that they removed the piece of wood to gain access to the original opening to the house and purchased the windows based on what they saw.  The Committee stated all of the windows need to be shown on the plans.  The Committee stated there is more than one window style. The Committee asked what kind of muntin pattern is on the window. The muntin pattern that is shown in the historic photograph does not match the muntin pattern that is drawn on the plans. The windows that are drawn on the elevations have crossed lines and there is not an accurate depiction of what the window will look like. The Committee would like to see the three-part window on the front of the home as shown in the survey photograph. Ms. Catlin restated she copied the exact windows from the contractor's home on Pine Street.  The Committee stated the mullion patterns are completely at variance with what the doors look like. Ms. Catlin stated she found the door in the garage and assumed it was the original door.  The Committee stated the applicant should go with the example that she submitted which shows a fixed glass with a ribbon of glass on the top part of it, as indicated in the 1991 photo.  The Committee stated the side windows have a craftsman detail on the way the muntins are divided and not the Spanish colonial approach.  The Committee would like to see the proper three part window on the front of the home as shown in the historic photograph.  The Committee asked staff if they had a real historic photograph or if it was just a digital image. Ms. Moshier stated she was not sure and will look into the file.  The Committee Members stated it is not up to the Committee to figure out what was originally there.  The Committee agreed they cannot make the required findings needed to approve the project and their main concern is the front windows. There are a number of resources online where the applicant can obtain the proper information. The contract also clearly spells out what needs to be done and there is a wealth of information that they can obtain from the City; it is unfortunate that path was not taken.  The Committee stated the applicant has an approvable approach to rebuild the service porch, however the drawings do not show that. The drawings show existing conditions that do not look like they are reflected on the existing plan. The existing plans do not show the window, but it does show on the existing elevation. The existing elevation also shows more windows on the porch facing the side yard; the new elevation shows less, but it does not show that they are infilling it. The drawings are not very clear and if the Committee did not have the photographs to look at they would not be able to tell what they are evaluating.  Committee Member Fox offered her set of plans with her notes to assist staff. Chair McCormack stated the Committee appears to want to entertain a continuance in order to allow the applicant to work with staff to correct the drawings, show the existing conditions, and to coordinate a plan and elevations together so that the Committee knows exactly what is going on. They should also consider studying the consistency of the muntins. He asked the applicant if she wants to continue the item. Rick Moser, designer and structural engineer for the applicant, approached. He stated it is a concrete masonry house that has stucco on the outside. The detail of the window sash is correct. City of Orange – Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for February 6, 2019 Page 10 of 14 Mr. Moser stated the applicant has gone back and forth with staff. The applicant submitted plans, and the staff sent them back with comments in blocks and squares, but they never said what they liked or did not like on the drawings, what they liked better, or say what the applicant should do. It is very hard to have direction when you are not getting any. He can do anything; he just needs to be told what they want. He took off all the trim and exposed the aluminum windows that were there and the windows that Ms. Catlin purchased were measured to fit the original opening. He can match the stucco; he just needs the DRC to tell him what they want. The parapet will be restored back to the way the porch was; if the DRC has a picture of what they want, they can give him the pictu re and he will re-draw it to look like what it was before. Chair McCormack offered to have one of the Committee Members go out to the home and give them more direction. Bill Crouch, Community Development Director, suggested that staff could accompany the DRC Member. Committee Member Imboden stated he previously met with Ms. Catlin to look at windows at one of her other properties. It is generally up to the applicant to hire professionals who have expertise in historic properties to provide solutions to the problems; it is not up to the DRC to solve the problems. Ms. Catlin has been through the design review process in Orange before and knows how it works. The Committee Members have all agreed they cannot figure out what windows go where and the pictures that she brought for evidence does not follow what she told them. There seems to be a serious disconnect between her owning the Mills Act historic property and not being able to meet with the Preservation Planners and bring the right things to the DRC for approval. Ms. Catlin mentioned all the money that she has spent on the property; the purpose of the Mills Act is to give the owners relief to take care of the property. Ms. Catlin stated she has met with Ms. Moshier and Ms. Ribuffo several times; they kept asking for more information and she or Mr. Moser could not get to the bottom of what she needed to do. She wants Staff to tell her exactly what she needs to do so she does not have to keep going back and forth. A Committee Member stated drawing a parapet on the plan when she is planning to build a parapet is something that the she should know, if that is what she is planning to do. Staff does not know whether or not she is planning to build a parapet because the plan does not show it. Showing an existing window on the elevation, but not on the plan, is a drafting situation and not up to staff to draw it on there. Ms. Catlin responded that she would just like more direction from the historical people as to what they will approve. She stated she will go back to the drawing board and try again but she does not want to be put down by everybody on the Committee for all the effort she has done on his house. She feels the Committee is rude and she does not want to be spoken down to and does not want to be treated like this. She should have been told to hire an architectural specialist from the beginning. Chair McCormack stated they can make a special exception to have staff and someone on the Committee go to the home to provide input. City of Orange – Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for February 6, 2019 Page 11 of 14 Mr. Crouch stated he will work with the Committee and staff to meet with the applicant and provide precise direction. Committee Member Skorpanich made a motion to continue DRC No. 4952-18, Catlin Culver Residence in order to provide a site visit with a Member of the DRC and staff. SECOND: Imboden AYES: Fox, Imboden, McCormack, McDermott, and Skorpanich NOES: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange – Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for February 6, 2019 Page 12 of 14 (5) DRC No. 4955-18 – PHILZ COFFEE  A proposal to convert an existing 1,665 square foot auto repair shop to a coffee shop with associated parking lot and landscaping improvements.  202 N. Glassell Street, Old Towne Historic District  Staff Contact: Marissa Moshier, 714-744-7243, mmoshier@cityoforange.org  DRC Action: Final Determination Marissa Moshier, Historic Preservation Planner, provided an overview of the proposed coffee shop consistent with the staff report. Chair McCormack invited the applicant to step forward. Mel Findley, VP of Real Estate, provided an overview and history of Philz Coffee. Chair McCormack opened the public comment portion of the meeting. Erica Nelles, architect, approached and introduced herself. Josefina Garcia, Senior Construction Manager, introduced herself. Jeff Frankel of the Old Town Preservation Association spoke in favor of the project. Chair McCormack closed the public comment portion of meeting and brought it back to the Committee for deliberation. Committee questions and comments:  The Committee Members all agreed it was a great project and that the applicant did a really good job in addressing the concerns that the Committee has for these types of buildings.  The Committee suggested that the window openings be patched with plaster and set in slightly from the face of the concrete block in order to see where the original window was.  The Committee asked if the raised planters in front are permanent or removable. Ms. Nelles stated they are all permanent.  The Committee was pleased to see that parking was reduced in order to provide more landscaping.  The Committee asked if there will be an address on the building. Ms. Moshier responded that Fire and Police will weigh in on the code requirements for the minimum size, placement , and lighting.  The Committee asked how the porcelain enamel panels will be prepped for painting. Ms. Nelles stated the panels will be prepped with an acrylic primer.  The Committee asked about the thickness of the cantilever canopy. Ms. Nelles stated it is existing canopy.  The Committee had a slight concern that the yellow fabric canopies may draw attention away from the building because they are so large. Ms. Nelles responded that the yellow is consistent throughout their establishments.  The Committee asked staff if all of the landscaping was a City requirement. Ms. Moshier explained the standard code was not feasible at the site, so they worked with the applicant to City of Orange – Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for February 6, 2019 Page 13 of 14 obtain a reasonable landscape planter size that improves the conformity of the site and still make the parking lot functional.  A Committee Member was concerned that the amount of landscaping that is being added takes it far out of any historic context. It does not look like a 1950's service station.  The Committee discussed the design and materials of the pedestrian path and they would like to see a wider entry walkway to avoid pedestrians from walking in the drive-through.  The Committee suggested replacing the Strawberry trees with London Plane trees or Tabebuia and let the building stand out amidst a simple land scape palette.  The Committee liked the shrub plants that were selected.  The Committee asked if a lighting plan will be submitted. Ms. Nelles responded that the y do not have any proposed site lighting in the parking lot. Two light poles that are currently on the property will be relocated and the building has three bays with glazed garage doors that will allow the interior light to flood the patio.  The Committee recommended that they evaluate tree up lighting or path lighting.  The Committee has concerns about the wall of Cypress trees along the driveway that goes out onto Glassell; it will not provide any visibility for pedestrians. Ms. Moshier stated the Traffic Division reviewed the plans and did not express any concerns especially because it is an existing driveway.  The Committee recommended a traffic calming device in the pavement to slow down traffic.  The Committee recommended some kind of visual or textural change to indicate to the drivers that they are entering into a pedestrian conflict zone, i.e. when tires rumble it slows people down. Ms. Nelles agreed to apply a rougher paving surface to signal those specific zones.  The Committee stated a zero curb can also be helpful in the pedestrian zone.  The Committee suggested increasing the 4x3 pedestrian stepping pads to 5x3 and to add two more at the back of walk. Ms. Nelles agreed to add the larger 5x3 pads in order to encourage pedestrians to use the access that is provided by the paver stones.  The Committee stated they did not want the vinyl sign material. Ms. Garcia responded that they want an acrylic sign instead of vinyl so that the mug can glow.  The Committee discussed the neon lighting on the aluminum pylon sign and the possible lack of contrast; they asked to have the details brought back for further review.  The Committee stated there is less than a three-foot soffit on the roof and is concerned about visibility of equipment. Ms. Nelles stated there will not be any equipment on the roof; the condensers will be on the ground behind the building. Committee Member Fox made a motion to approve DRC No. 4955-18, Minor Site Plan Review 0956-18 and Administrative Adjustment 0265–18, Philz Coffee based on the findings and conditions in the staff report with the additional conditions and recommendations as follows: Conditions: 1. The new doors at the restrooms shall have plaster finish inset from the plane of the concrete block in the infill area above the head of the door on the east elevation. 2. There shall be a paving change in the drive aisle at the exit towards Glassell , as well is at the crossing of the pedestrian path in front of the building. 3. The cup on the pylon sign shall not be vinyl as indicated on the material board and shall be acrylic or paint, at the applicant's discretion. Recommendations: 1. The applicant shall consider uplit trees to help promote site lighting. City of Orange – Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for February 6, 2019 Page 14 of 14 2. The applicant shall work with staff on the building address prior to its placement on the building. 3. The pedestrian path shall be widened to 5 feet and include an additional paving stone on either side of the first stone at the back of the walk on the south. 4. The Strawberry tree can be substituted with the Pink Trumpet or a London Plane Tree. 5. The applicant shall study the neon on the pylon sign to ensure that the letters are legible. SECOND: Skorpanich AYES: Fox, Imboden, McCormack, McDermott, and Skorpanich NOES: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. Committee Member Imboden thanked the applicant for doing such a great job with the details on the project. Bill Crouch, Community Development Director, endorsed Mr. Imboden's comments and thanked staff for all their hard work. ADJOURNMENT: Committee Member Skorpanich made a motion to adjourn to the next Design Review Committee meeting on Wednesday, February 20, 2019 at 5:00 p.m. SECOND: Imboden AYES: Fox, Imboden, McCormack, McDermott, and Skorpanich NOES: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. Meeting adjourned at 8:52 p.m.