Loading...
2011-09-21 DRC Final Minutes CITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES - FINAL September 21, 2011 Committee Members Present: Bill Cathcart Tim McCormack Craig Wheeler Joe Woollett Committee Members Absent: None Staff in Attendance: Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager Robert Garcia, Associate Planner Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary Administrative Session — 5:00 P.M. Chair Cathcart opened the Administrative Session at 5:10 p.m. Planning Manager, Leslie Aranda Roseberry, stated there were no changes to the Agenda or any additional information to impart. The Committee Members reviewed the meeting minutes from the Design Review Committee meeting of August 17, 2011 and September 7, 2011. Corrections and changes were noted. Committee Member Wheeler stated on sign programs or when sign issues came in, on the vertical distance of the plane and the dimension on the drawings, the code stated that the dimensions were to be included on the drawings. Ms. Aranda Roseberry asked if he was referring to the frontage? Associate Planner, Robert Garcia, stated it would be based on the frontage, and the size of that would be determined in order to calculate the square footage allowed. Committee Member Wheeler stated the code stated that the sign height shall not exceed 2/3 of the height of the vertical surface or plane on which the sign would be located and the applicant shall indicate those dimensions on any plan submitted for sign purposes. Ms. Aranda Roseberry asked if he was questioning the vertical height? Committee Member Wheeler stated yes, and he was wondering if they could enforce that. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated maybe they had missed a couple; they spoke about it when signs were reviewed. Staff could tell instantly if it was definitely wrong. Chair Cathcart stated on the residence name for New Agenda Item No. 2, the applicant owner's name was spelled differently in separate places. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for September 21, 2011 Page 2 of 12 Mr. Garcia stated the correct spelling was with "a." The correction was noted. Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to adjourn the Administrative Session of the Design Review Committee meeting. SECOND: Tim McCormack AYES: Bill Cathcart, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. Administrative Session adjourned at 5:22 p.m. Regular Session - 5:30 P.M. ROLL CALL: All Committee Members present and there was one open seat on the Design Review Committee. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Opportunity for members of the public to address the Design Review Committee on matters not listed on the Agenda. All matters that are announced as Consent Items are considered to be routine by the Design Review Committee and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of said items unless members of the Design Review Committee, staff, or the p ublic request specific items to be removed from the Consent Items for separate action. CONSENT ITEMS: (1) APPROVAL OF MINUTES: August 17, 2011 Committee Member Woollett made a motion to approve the minutes from the regular scheduled Design Review Committee meeting of August 17, 2011, with changes and corrections as noted during the Administrative Session. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: Bill Cathcart ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for September 21, 2011 Page 3 of 12 (2) APPROVAL OF MINUTES: September 7, 2011 Committee Member Woollett made a motion to approve the minutes from the regular scheduled Design Review Committee meeting of September 7, 2011 with changes and corrections as noted during the Administrative Session. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Bill Cathcart, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for September 21, 2011 Page 4 of 12 AGENDA ITEMS: Continued Items: None New Agenda Items: (2) DRC No. 4562 -11 - ABUNIMAH RESIDENCE • A proposal to remodel the existing dwelling and construct a second -story addition to a single family residence. • 2230 E. Pepper Hill Drive • Staff Contact: Robert Garcia, 714- 744 -7231, r a_g rcia(aDcityoforan e.or • DRC Action: Final Determination Associate Planner, Robert Garcia, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Haitham Hafeez, address on file, was present for questions. Public Comment None. Chair Cathcart opened the item to the Committee for discussion. Mr. Garcia presented drawings from the applicant's initial submittal and the changes that had been made after staff review. Committee Member Wheeler stated on the drawings there were two columns and he could not identify what was holding up the right side of roof overhang. He asked if there should be additional columns? He reviewed the drawings with the applicant. Committee Member Wheeler stated on the side elevation there was a pretty good projection of the roof, but there appeared to be only two columns in the center. Mr. Hafeez stated he had missed that detail. Committee Member Wheeler stated there was a pretty heavy line shown around the windows and he asked what that was? Mr. Hafeez stated that would be window trim. Committee Member Wheeler asked if there was window trim and additional trim further out? Mr. Hafeez stated that was correct, it was like a pop -out. Committee Member Wheeler stated on sheet A2.2 the elevation showed a Dutch gable on one end of the garage, however, that was not indicated on the roof plan. There was some sort of an City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for September 21, 2011 Page 5 of 12 eyebrow on the garage, but no Dutch gable. On a couple of the drawings the fascia appeared odd, there was not an extended fascia shown and he pointed out an area that was out about 1'. In some areas the fascia was not shown at all and he pointed out those areas on the drawings to the applicant. He had never seen a chimney such as what was proposed; it could be done, but it appeared odd looking. The fireplaces were stacked on top of each other and the flue from the lower unit would need to snake around the firebox of the upper unit. It would be a better design to center the lower unit in the room and use a wider chimney that would go all the way up and accommodate the two fireboxes. The top could then narrow and it would be a cleaner way to install them. On the floor plan, and it was not their concern, but it was something to think about; over the years he had designed hundreds of custom homes and he had not remembered designing a home without a window in the master bathroom. A window was not required, but it was just a suggestion. Mr. Garcia asked if that would be on the east side of the residence? Committee Member Wheeler stated it would be on the west side. Mr. Garcia stated he believed it was on the east side according to the plan layout. The Committee Members reviewed the plans. Committee Member Wheeler stated on the design he could not agree with the findings for compatibility. Homes in that neighborhood had very prominent roofs with large overhangs. He had not remembered seeing a home in that neighborhood that had such a large expanse of two - story wall on the front. The other homes in the neighborhood had feature materials such as stone, brick, or wood siding and the proposal was just a big stucco box. He understood the applicant had worked hard to re- design the overhang, however, it was not enough for that particular neighborhood and it was similar to other houses that had come before the DRC. On other projects they had suggested to push the ridge back and do more of a shed and to allow the shed to continue out to become the overhang. He had sketched up a few suggestions that might work better. He reviewed his ideas with the applicant and stated pushing the ridge back far enough to come out with a roof plate high enough to clear the garage and to use larger overhangs and larger fascia. Those features were very dominant in that neighborhood. The use of feature materials was important, things that would help the proposal to agree with other properties in the neighborhood. Another thought was to add a dormer to get light from the second story out front and to coordinate something with the windows. Have some fun with it; the neighborhood had many eclectic features of the early 1960's and there were interesting forms and brackets and to have some fun with the columns and suggest some of the forms that were used on homes in the neighborhood. Committee Member Woollett stated he concurred with Committee Member Wheeler's comments. Committee Member McCormack stated he concurred and thought the fireplace was odd. He had a problem with the big huge west elevation wall and it would be such a hot wall, it looked like a vertical skillet. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for September 21, 2011 Page 6of12 Committee Member Wheeler stated he gathered there was some conflict with the neighbors. Mr. Hafeez stated it was the neighbors next door on that side. Committee Member Wheeler stated from the street at the angle it sat it would not be very visible; it was a big area and one of the advantages in moving the ridge back. Committee Member McCormack asked if it was open beam? Mr. Hafeez stated yes. Committee Member McCormack stated if he was designing it he would articulate the west elevation a bit differently. Chair Cathcart stated they could use obscure glass. Committee Member McCormack stated there would need to be a reason to put something there and it would evolve from the interior design. Chair Cathcart stated the fascia and overhang looked out of scale. The Committee Members reviewed the design suggestion that Committee Member Wheeler had presented. Committee Member McCormack stated that large wall from the inside would be an odd wall to have, they were reviewing it from the outside, but he would imagine it would be the same response from the inside. Committee Member Woollett stated on the second level there was a curved space and one window and it was quite a high space and the height would vary and there appeared to be some opportunity to bring light in. It was the north elevation and there would not be any direct sun coming into that space and it would be great to get some light inside. Applicant and Owner, Eiad Abunimah, address on file, stated with the fascia as presented it had a more modern appearance. Committee Member Wheeler stated the Committee Members were charged with ensuring the proposal was compatible with the neighborhood. Mr. Abunimah stated there were some homes that had a more modern appearance and there was one approximately 500 -700' away that was visible from the home. Chair Cathcart stated that the previously referenced home had not had the same roof style. The configuration of the roof was different and the suggestion from the DRC would be to continue the project to allow the applicant to digest the suggestions presented. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for September 21, 2011 Page 7 of 12 Committee Member Woollett stated with a second floor they were adding mass and size and there had to be caution in doing that. Committee Member Wheeler stated there were other two -story homes in the neighborhood, but none that extended the entire front of the home as the design presented. Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to continue DRC No. 4562 -11, Abunimah Residence. SECOND: Tim McCormack AYES: Bill Cathcart, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for September 21, 2011 Page 8 of 12 (3) DRC No. 4583 -11 — CHOC SOUTH TOWER A proposal for a sign program at the new south tower for Children's Hospital of Orange County. • 455 S. Main Street • Staff Contact: Robert Garcia, 714 - 744 -7231, rgarciagcityoforange.org • DRC Action: Final Determination Chair Cathcart recused himself from the project's presentation as he was the landscape architect on the project. Associate Planner, Robert Garcia, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Steven Fisch and Michael Swain, addresses on file, were available for questions. Public Comment None. Vice Chair Woollett opened the item to the Committee for discussion. Committee Member Wheeler stated he had a list of picky things, but overall he had no problems with the proposed signs. He provided a hand out of his suggestions to the applicants. He stated it would have been nice if a table of contents had been provided. The City Code, as he read it, required that whenever a sign was being installed on a horizontal band, the applicant was to provide the dimensions of the band to verify that the height of the sign was not more than 2/3 the height of the band it was on. There were a number of sign dimensions that he was not able to find. It looked like all but one was okay. On page 4.0 the sign was a little close and the descenders were part of the sign height and it might be more than 2/3. The other signs appeared to be okay. He suggested that the applicant provide staff with dimensions of what the bands were. Vice Chair Woollett stated very rarely were lower case letters used and usually they had not had to deal with descenders and he wondered if those should be an exception. Committee Member Wheeler stated in the past they had been included. That particular sign had not appeared to be a problem as there was a large flat surface that was interrupted by the mid section and since it was all the same color he had no objection to it. He assumed the fonts were all the same. On sheet 3.0, again the descenders, and reading the sign code they should be included in the area of the sign. He reviewed the sign with the applicants and Staff. Mr. Garcia stated if they looked at the 2 " page there were dimensions listed. It was over 140 linear feet. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for September 21, 2011 Page 9 of 12 Committee Member Wheeler stated on sheet 4.0 he had come up with an area of 43 ' / 2 ' rather than 32'. To clarify on sheet 6.0 construction details had not been provided and it was similar to the sign on 5.0 and they could reference that page to be the same as to not confuse anyone. On sheet 8 he was confused, on the daylight elevation it appeared that the disc sign was a beige color, but on sheet 8.2 the disc was called out as blue. Mr. Swain stated it was beige. Committee Member Wheeler stated on sheet 9.2 there was a big dimension grid in the middle of the sheet that blocked out part of the sign detail and part of the elevation. There was also a partial elevation on the south side and on sheet 10 construction details were not called out and should have a reference to sheet 9.2 for the construction details. On sheet 11 he asked if there was a film on the glass? Mr. Swain stated yes it was a 3m film. It was in sections. Committee Member Wheeler stated his big problem was on sheet 12, where there was a reference to the John M. Doe tower; it worked great with that name but what if it was Phineous Peerpot Picklepepper, how would they fit that all in? It was something to think about. Mr. Swain stated he hoped they had that problem. Committee Member McCormack stated on sheet 5.3 he was curious on the fabrication of the bear loop; it was 6' in diameter and he asked if it was illuminated from the interior? Mr. Swain stated yes, with neon. Committee Member Wheeler stated it was clearer on sheet 5.4. Committee Member McCormack stated the disc was fabricated in and of itself with the translucent vacuum formed Lexan with the LED's inside, and he asked if that was an off -the- shelf product? Mr. Swain stated everything was custom. It was mounted on the disc and then onto the blue glass. Committee Member McCormack asked if the intent was for the 1'6" edge to glow? Mr. Swain stated the only part that was illuminated was the bear which was projected out and there were LEDs inside. Vice Chair Woollett asked if the area was accessible? Mr. Swain stated there would be an access door on the top of the disc and be accessed from the roof. In the CHOC text the access was behind the glass, inside. Committee Member Wheeler asked when were they anticipating the hospital to be opening? City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for September 21, 2011 Page 10 of 12 Mr. Fisch stated April of 2013. He stated because the project was an OSHPOD permitted project and they really had not had a City permit for the building, he asked if they would need a separate permit for the project's signage and could they apply for that? Mr. Garcia stated that was correct, the applicant would apply for the sign permit. Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve DRC No. 4583 -11, CHOC South Tower, subject to the conditions and findings contained in the Staff Report and with the following additional condition: 1. Applicant shall provide Staff with the dimensions of all of the horizontal bands that contained signs in order to verify compliance with the sign ordinance. And with the suggestions discussed in accordance with the following list provided to the applicant by Committee Member Wheeler: 1. Sheet 1.0: For a set of drawings of this size, a table of contents or some sort of symbol reference to the appropriate drawing sheet would be very helpful. 2. Numerous: OMC Section 17.36.080C specifies that "Sign height shall not exceed a dimension that is greater than two- thirds (213) of the height of the vertical surface (or plane) upon which it is located. The applicant shall indicate those dimensions upon any plan submitted for a sign permit." Could not find the dimensions for the plane for Signs DID 3 (4.0), PBI 1 (5.0), PBI 2 (6.0), BDI 1 (12.0), BDI 2 (13.0), and ADDRESS (14.0). 3. Sheet 2.0: Is the font for this sign specified anywhere? Assume it is the same as the others. 4. Sheet 3.0: Believes the sign code specifies that the area of a sign be measured as the space enclosed by two sets of parallel lines which surround the sign. By this method, the sign area for this sign should include the decenders and thus is probably closer to 22.6 square feet rather than the 16.875 square feet shown. 5. Sheet 4.0: As in comment #4, this sign height appears to be closer to 43.5 square feet if you include the decenders. 6. Sheet 5.3: Why is the font shown as "N /A "? 7. Sheet 6.0:' Since no construction details are shown for Sign PBI -2, it might be a good idea to clarify that it is to be constructed similarly to Sign PBI -1 on Sheet 5.3. 8. Sheet 8.0: The daytime elevation of this sign seems to show that the disk is a beige color. But Detail #2 on Sheet 8.2 calls it out as blue. 9. Sheet 9.2: What is the dimensioned grid drawing that occupies the center area of this sheet? Why does it partially cover Detail #6 and the sign elevation? And what is Detail #5 that shows the South Elevation doing on this sheet? 10. Sheet 10.2 - ?: Should there be a Sheet 10.2 to show the construction of this sign or should it be referenced to Sheet 9.2 (which would explain why the partial south elevation is included on that sheet). 11. Sheet 11.0: Assume that this graphic is on glass. But just for information, what is "3M Dusted Crystal "? Do you have a sample? 12. Sheet 12.0: This is all well and good if the donor is named "John M. Doe ". But what happens if Mr. Phileas Pierpont Picklepacker decides to donate a few billion so he can have his name (no initial please) up there? Ditto on Sheet 13.0. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for September 21, 2011 Page 11 of 12 SECOND: Tim McCormack AYES: Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None RECUSED: Bill Cathcart MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for September 21, 2011 Page 12 of 12 ADJOURNMENT: Committee Member McCormack made a motion to adjourn to the next regular scheduled Design Review Committee meeting on Wednesday, October 5, 2011. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Bill Cathcart MOTION CARRIED. Meeting adjourned at 6:10 p.m.