Loading...
2016-11-16 DRC Final Minutes CITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES - FINAL November 16, 2016 Committee Memb.ers Present: Carol Fox - Chair Craig Wheeler—Vice Chair Robert Imboden Tim McCormack Anne McDermott Staff in Attendance: Robert Garcia, Senior Planner Kelly Ribuffo, Associate Planner Sharon Penttila, Recording Secretary Administrative Session —5:00 Chair Fox opened the Administrative Session at 5:03 p.m. Chair Fox inquired if there was any Policy or Procedural information. Mr. Garcia indicated there was no Policy or Procedural information. Vice Chair Wheeler announced that this would be his last DRC meeting because he had reached his term limit. He has been a Design Review Committee member for the past 14 years. Chair Fox said the Committee owes a debt of gratitude to Vice Chair Wheeler. Committee Members reviewed the Design Review Committee minutes far November 2, 2016. Vice Chair Wheeler made a motion to close the Administrative Session of the Design Review Committee meeting. SECOND: Tim McCormack AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Anne McDermott, and Craig Wheeler NOES: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. Administrative Session adjourned at 5:18 p.m. City of Orange—Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for November l 6, 2016 Page 2 of 10 Regular Session—5:35 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: NOVEMBER 2,2016 Vice Chair Wheeler made a motion to approve the minutes from the Design Review Committee meeting of November 2, 2016, as emended during the discussion at the Administrative Session. SECOND: Robert Imboden AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, and Craig Wheeler NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Anne McDermott MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange—Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for November 16,2016 Page 3 of 10 AGENDA ITEMS New A�enda Items: (2) MNSP No. 0857-16 Chapman University Villa Park Orchards Association Packing House and West Residential Village • 350 N. Cypress Street and 400 W. Sycamore Avenue • A proposal for rehabilitation of the Villa Park Orchards Association (VPOA) Packing House, relocation of existing historic era accessory structures, and construction of a new multi-story, multi-family student residential building. • Staff Contact: Kelly Ribuffo, kribuffo(�a,cit oforan e�.org, 714-744-7223 • DRC Action: Preliminary Review Kelly Ribuffo, Associate Planner, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. The applicants who were present for this project were Kris Olsen, Ken Ryan, Johanna Crooker, Peyton Hall, Tom Greer, Bob Murrin, and Warren Williams. Mr. Olsen, Chapman University, stated that they have been trying to find a good fit for this historic site since 2011. He explained how they have come through a number of iterations over the last few years. Mr. Ryan, KTGY, stated they were looking for preliminary feedback on the project. He thanked Ms. Ribuffo and the staff because they have worked hard to get them to this point. He gave a presentation using visual boards to show the highlights of the project. He explained how they are repositioning the two ancillary buildings - the fertilizer shed and the auto/truck storage building. He described their approach from a design perspective and wanted a site plan that celebrated the packing house which would include an art museum space. He discussed the mass and scale of the new residence hall. Mr. Olsen explained how they are cleaning up the farade of the packing house, bringing it back to its original fa�ade. He clarified that the residential hall could include up to 420 units but eventually could be closer to 400 units. He explained how they tried to create a building that would fit on the site and that one of the floors would be subterranean. Public Comments: Chair Fox opened the item to the Public for comments. Jeff Frankel, Old Towne Preservation Association, address on file, stated they have been involved with the project since 2011 through numerous meetings. Their concerns had been the impact of the infill building but the applicant has broken up the massing as well as the setback of the upper floor, and increased the distance between the infill building and the packing house. They appreciate the restoration that will be done to the packing house but still have a few issues with the bulk and mass of the residential hall because it would be a huge presence on the corner. They support the project City of Orange—Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for November 16, 2016 Page 4 of 10 because it would get the students out of the district and into student housing. They are ok with the relocation of the two accessory structures and the design, but the project is not quite there yet. Chair Fox opened the item to the Committee for discussion: • Asked what would happen to the Farmers Market. Mr. Olsen said they would try and accommodate them in another location that was available. • Asked what the final plans for the tennis courts would be. Mr. Olsen said they would be starting on the courts in Spring and would remain that way for many years. • Requested when they get their next packet that they get the existing DPR forms. • Questioned that in one place the fertilizer shed and the auto/truck storage building were listed as non-contributors and in another spot, in 2005, it was listed as contributors. Ms. Ribuffo clarified that the packing house was a contributing resource and the site as a whole was within the boundaries of the National District and local district but the two accessory buildings have not previously been referred to as contributing. However, the historic resources technical report prepared by HRG, the applicant's consultant, identified the packing house and the two associated buildings as a potential historic site eligible for the National Register of Historic places. Mr. Ryan explained that they would not be eligible on their own without the packing house being present. Chan�es to the site, includin� demolition of non-historic features and relocation of two accessorX buildin�s: • Thought as far as the accessory buildings they wanted to reserve judgment until later in the discussion and thought they were holding back the best project that could be done there. • Thought the site was crowded and needed to prioritize what was being done on the entire project. • Didn't mind relocating the accessory structures but not sure if they are equally important. The packing house is an amazing historic resource and did not want to overwhelm it with too much going on in the site. • Questioned the railroad tracks being proposed along the east side. Mr. Olsen said they are looking at the possibility of either recasting the rails or doing something with hardscape material that would symbolize where they went. • Asked if they thought about including box cars. Mr. Olsen said they thought about it but it would have to be in the front which would block the building. • Asked what would be the size of the relocated Hilbert museum compared to the current size. Mr. Olsen said the relocated museum would be 19,000 sq. ft. • Thought the proposed relocation analysis was good and liked that the accessory structures were being respected. • Noted at the Anaheim Packing House there is a boardwalk and wanted the applicants to think about creating a venue opportunity memorializing the space. Would hate to lose an opportunity if the parking was to go somewhere else. • Asked if the relocated structures would be used for storage. Mr. Olsen said for now they would remain storage. Wanted to be assured the structures would be well maintained. • Noted it was an opportunity to create a people space along Cypress but right now it was a non-people space because of the street parking. • Thought closing the street down would provide an opportunity for a Farmers Market. • Did not think the site plan responded to the auxiliary buildings. • Wanted some special landscaping done around the packing house. City of Orange—Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for November 16, 2016 Page 5 of 10 • Most exciting space on the site was the plaza area in front of Hilbert entry. Site Plan of the new buildin�: • Thought it looked like a northern European small town development pattern which would be foreign to Orange. • It was feeling larger than it actually is. • The southeast corner treatment overemphasizes the importance of this building. • Noted the Schmid gate at the end of Sycamore Street created an axis and how it would be an opportunity to put some of the new dormitory there and enhance the pedestrian area along Sycamore Street. • Suggested splitting the buildings into north and south. • Noted the amount of continuous mass and was uncomfortable especially with the corner mass and wanted it to breathe better because the site seemed overcrowded. • Applauded the separation of zones because student housing needs security. Thought the applicant had been generous with giving the community public space. • Would be concerned with moving the residence hall to the north parking lot due to the residential area nearby. • Concerned with the U-shape of the building surrounding a courtyard in the context of Old Towne. • Others noted it would not be viewed as a U at street level and it suggests industrial buildings which are part of Old Towne Orange. • Ms. Ribuffo stated there is language in the Chapman Specific Plan related to courtyards and landscaping and she would provide that to the Committee at the next meeting. • Noted the property was not within the boundaries of the Depot Specific Plan. • Not comfortable with the mass and height on the corner and wanted to see it drastically reduced. Suggested putting the height along the railroad tracks. Alterations to the packin hg ouse: • Noted the new openings would be on the basement level and it was an excellent way to use the space but would hope the finished treatment of the exposed lower portion of the building would speak to that since the design intent was not there and hoped it would not be a continuation of the building above it. Mr. Hall explained the fa�ade finishes. • Did not understand the cut in the floor and if it was vertical circulation or if it created a mezzanine type scenario and wanted more information about it. Mr. Greer said the cutout was a connection to the courtyard and would bring light to the lower level. • Asked about the steps in the basement leading upward and wanted that articulated better. • Thought the removal of non-historic additions had been labeled well in the packet. • Noted the conveyor belt and the mezzanine were mentioned in the historical report as one of the character defining features but thought they had been removed. Mr. Olsen explained that when VPO moved out, they took all the auxiliary equipment. • Suggested the Committee be given a tour of the packing house before the next meeting to see the remnants. Mr. Olsen said they could also provide photographic representation. • Mr. Crouch, CDD Director, said tours could be provided with one or two DRC members at a time. The Committee also noted another option would be to have a special posted meeting at the site. City of Orange—Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for November 16, 2016 Page 6 of 10 • Noted on the building that there was a dormer but it was not on all the renderings. Mr. Olsen said it would be demolished. • Asked if the floor was going to be removed and if there was an intended use for the old flooring. Mr. Olsen said they are exploring that and that VPO had put diamond metal plates on the floors and they will have to determine the integrity of the floor after further analysis. Mass & scale and architectural features & materials of the new buildin : • Had a big issue with the design of the new residence hall seen on Page 27 where the corner entry is too grandiose and does not say anything to the humble buildings of Orange. • Liked the signage on the stilts above the main entrance • Thought the fa�ade along the railroad tracks was appropriate but not when you come around the corner. • Mr. Ryan explained that the corner was very important in terms of their Specific Plan and celebrating the plaza. • Not opposed to the setback of the southeast corner. • Preferred the "B" sides of the building and wished they were the "A" sides. • Asked when there is an addition to a historic site aren't you supposed to be referencing the historic resource not the historic resource across the road. Ms. Ribuffo said the direction staff had given the applicants was to not only look at the site they were on but to make sure the design was compatible with the overall area. Mr. Murrin said the concept was the internal courtyard related to the fa�ade of the packing house and the B elevations were straightforward and less decorative. Mr. Olsen said it was a challenge depending on the type of feedback on different projects. • Noted when the industrial buildings were constructed along the tracks none of them cared about what the neighbor's building looked like. • Discussed increasing the stucco to brick ratio on the building. • Happy with the breakup of the facades in terms of the articulation and treated one part one way and one another but all the tiny windows seemed to lose the industrial simplicity of the vernacular. Mr. Ryan said their response was to have this project make sense financially. • Mr. Olsen said the setback of the upper floor of the residence building was the depth of one whole dorm room. • Asked what the corner was making a big gesture to and would it be addressing something planned in the future. Mr. Olsen said that President Doty has driven the vision for the campus and his vision was for a rotunda entrance on the same scale as the film school and that this design was a couple of steps down from where it had been. • Did not think the building respected the packing house. • Thought too much effort had been put into the design of the residential building. • Did not like the 45 degree angle at the corner and suggested just a cut back with a negative space. • Thought the residence building appeared to be pretending to be an old historic fa�ade with a different building behind. • Noted on Page 38 on the south elevation, on the left hand side, that if you took away the articulated corner, the massing was pretty nice. • Thought what was listed as the north elevation was the nicest one. • Suggested grouping the windows which would give more of an industrial look. City of Orange—Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes far November 16, 2016 Page 7 of 10 • On Page 25 there was a big slice out of the south fa�ade and it gave the opportunity to break that up. • Suggested putting more height along the railroad tracks and reduce the mass on the Cypress Street side which now overwhelms the packing house. • Thought setting back the upper levels works very well and brought the scale down from the streetscape. • The Committee still had an issue with the massing. • There was discussion of consideration for removing one of the auxiliary buildings. • Wanted to be able to see the packing house and not have it overwhelmed. • Mr. Hall spoke to the height issue of the proposed development and the south fa�ade of the building. He said they were not trying to diminish the south elevation. He stated that context was everything and just because something has a bigger footprint or was taller that did not mean it was not compatible or insubordinate. They felt it meets the standards for rehabilitation. He noted the National Register declines to list surface parking as contributing features. • Did not see the existing site as some master site plan and if this southern half of the property was a separate parcel,they would not be having this discussion about changing views. • Said this site was porous and there were blockages but also lots of views into the site. • Noted the courtyard has been created to allow a person to view the fa�ade from a distance and it was a great thing. Noted it was being kept private for students, however, the building was going to impose on the community and wanted it to have a public venue which could offset the impact on the neighborhood because of what was being given back to the community. • Liked the 3 areas on the site — controlled student residence area; transition area for students and public; and then the last area could be a whole new area for public space that has access to the museum. • Chair Fox appreciated the input from the other Committee Members but still had a problem with the size of it. • Mr. Olsen said they would take the Committee's comments to heart but they cannot make it smaller. • Noted the importance of getting out to view the site. • Mr. Murrin asked the Committee for feedback on the massing on the public street. The Committee was in favor of putting more density along the railroad tracks. Also it was thought that taking it off the top was not going to give more view of the building but it would be better to move the building mass south to see more of the packing house from Cypress Street. Noted the south fa�ade facing West Palm Avenue could take more density and lose it on the east and preferably lose the density on the north end of the U. • Wanted to see the materials on the building work together better. For Preliminary review only—no action required City of Orange—Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes far November 16,2016 Page 8 of 10 (3) DRC No. 4829-15 Castaway Inn & Suites • 1929 W. Chapman Avenue • Second floor addition for an owner's quarters at an existing hotel, no new hotel rooms are proposed. • Staff Contact: Robert Garcia, r arcia(�a,cityoforan�e.or�, (714) 744-7231 • DRC Action: Final Determination Robert Garcia, Senior Planner, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. The applicant who was present for this project was Darian Radac, Novum Architecture. He explained how the old hotel was in need of rebranding to revitalize the existing area. Public Comments: Chair Fox opened the item to the Public for comments. There were no speakers. Chair Fox opened the item to the Committee for discussion: • Referred to the slant roof shown on the east exterior building elevation on Sheet A3 and wanted to see the cantilever extended as much as possible. • Asked if there was a limit to the cantilever due to the setback and Mr. Garcia said no because it was within the height tolerance and could be half the distance to the property line. • Regarding the landscape layout, they were not concerned with the chosen plants except for the Agapanthus because it was a thirsty plant. Suggested using a grass such as Miscanthus, Pennisetum spathiolatum or an aloe. • In order to give the landscape a more current look, suggested creating a more formalized layout making it more gridded. Suggested using fewer plants spaced further apart and use wood bark mulch or a cool gravel. • Suggested picking the plants and creating layers, and spacing the Century agave 5' apart and use the agave red margin or blue glow agave or Agave desmetiana. Suggested using only one of the Agave americana in a selected spot. • Asked the applicant if they would consider switching the landscape wall with the handicap ramp placing the ramp against the building. Mr. Radac said the owner wanted a lush landscape around the building. • Suggested pulling the ramp 8"-12" in from the sidewalk and placing gravel there. • Asked if the screen block wall was staying. Mr. Radac said yes. • Asked if the existing railing would remain and be repainted. Mr. Radac said in the front it would be all new railing and the back railings would be repainted. • Asked if anything would be happening with the fence between the hotel and McDonalds. Mr. Radac said no. • Asked if the security bars on the front would go away. Mr. Radac said yes. • On Sheet A2 on the roof plan, noted the eave was being cut back on the front section of the existing second floor. • Asked if it would be possible to put stucco on the trash enclosure to match the building. Mr. Radac said yes. City of Orange—Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for November 16, 2016 Page 9 of 10 • Suggested placing backing material behind the south open screen wall of the trash enclosure. • Had reservations about the existing railings staying with the style of the new building. • Recommended on the south and east facing glass fa�ades using larger awning depths. Vice Chair Wheeler made a motion to approve DRC No. 4829-15, Castaway Inn & Suites, based on the findings and conditions listed in the Staff Report with the following additional conditions: 1. There shall be no security bars on the new project. 2. The front rake of the sloped roof on Chapman Avenue shall be extended to the degree convenient with the setbacks. 3. The trash enclosure shall be constructed of concrete masonry in stack bond with an opaque screen behind the existing screen block on the Chapman Avenue side. 4. The size of the awnings on the south and east sides shall be extended as much as possible. 5. The landscaping shall be organized in a more formalized pattern. 6. The landscape plan shall return to the Design Review Committee prior to the issuance of a building permit. 7. The ramp on the front of the building shall be moved back 8"-12" with a gravel area to match the gravel suggested to be added to the landscape plan in lieu of the mulch as shown. 8. The Agapanthus shall be removed from the palette of the landscape plans and possibly replaced with an ornamental grass. SECOND: Tim McCormack AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Anne McDermott, and Craig Wheeler NOES: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange—Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for November 16, 2016 Page 10 of 10 ADJOURNMENT: Vice Chair Wheeler made a motion to adjourn to the next Design Review Committee meeting on Wednesday, December 7, 2016 at 5:00 p.m. SECOND: Tim McCormack AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Anne McDermott, and Craig Wheeler NOES: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. Meeting adjourned at 8:51 p.m. i �� I i i �I i