The URL can be used to link to this page

2017-09-20 DRC Final Minutes CITY OF ORANGE � ; DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE i MINUTES -FINAL September 20, 2017 Committee Members Present: Robert Imboden—Chair Tim McCormack—Vice Chair Carol Fox Anne McDermott Mary Anne Skorpanich i � Staff in Attendance: Jennifer Le, Principal Planner � Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner ; Marissa Moshier, Historic Preservation Planner ' Monique Schwartz, Assistant Planner Vidal Marquez, Assistant Planner Carly Mallon, Recording Secretary ; � � 1 Administrative Session —5:00 � Chair Imboden opened the Administrative Session at 5:05 p.m. � i Chair Imboden inquired if there was any Policy or Procedural information. Jennifer Le, Principal � Planner, indicated there was no Policy or Procedural information. The landscape,hardscape, and lighting from the Packing House project will be coming back to Design Review Committee meeting on December 4tn Staff briefly discussed the quality and consistency of the plans presented to the DRC. � The Accornero Residences project was discussed to inform the Committee of the struggles the ' applicant had tried to overcome prior to coming before the Committee. i ! The Committee discussed lighting color temperature recommendations and how to incorporate the topic into the Historic Preservation Design Standards in the form of a general description of a warm � color temperature or a specific Kelvin number. i I Committee Members reviewed the Design Review Committee minutes for August 2°d, 2017 and ' August 9th, 2017. � Committee Member Fox made a motion to close the Administrative Session of the Design Review ! Committee meeting. i i SECOND: Anne McDermott AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Anne McDermott, and Mary Anne Skorpanich ; NOES: None � ABSENT: Tim McCormack � MOTION CARRIED. ' Administrative Session adjourned at 5:31 p.m. i � , r R^i.",:Y y4i :��3 I 4 City of Orange—Design Review Committee � Final Meeting Minutes for September 20, 2017 Page 2 of 13 � ' Regular Session—5:30 p.m. I ' 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. i ; There were no public speakers. � � CONSENT ITEMS: � (1) APPROVAL OF MINUTES: August 2, 2017 i j Committee Member McDermott made a motion to approve the minutes from the Design Review ; Committee meeting of August 2,2017 as emended during the discussion at the Administrative Session. i � SECOND: Carol Fox � AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, and Anne McDermott ! � NOES: None ABSENT: None ; ABSTAIN: Mary Anne Skorpanich MOTION CARRIED. � ii��r�rs� � r;,�,a`ry; I I( '�'� — mittee City of Orange Design Rev�ew Com Final Meeting Minutes for September 20,2017 Page 3 of 13 (1.2) APPROVAL OF MINUTES: August 9, 2017 Committee Member McDermott made a motion to approve the minutes from the Design Review Committee meeting of August 9,2017 as emended during the discussion at the Administrative Session. SECOND: Mary Anne Skorpanich AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Anne McDermott, and Mary Anne Skorpanich NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION CARRIED. � �. � City of Orange—Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for September 20, 2017 Page 4 of 13 AGENDAITEMS Continued Items: (2) DRC No. 4981-16 - ACCORNERO RESIDENCES • 1746 N. Shaffer Street • A proposal to construct a 2,460 square foot (3,000 square feet with garage) sin�le-familv dwellin� on each of two adiacent lots • Staff Contact: Chad Ortlieb. 714-744-7237, cortlieb@cityoforange.org • DRC Action: Final Determination Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. The applicants who were present on behalf of this project were Lance Friedman and Ron Accornero. Public Comments: Chair Imboden opened the item to the Public for comments. Dan Graupensperger stated he would like to speak on the project but did not yet know enough about the details of it and would like to see photos before he spoke. Chair Imboden opened the item to the Committee for discussion. The DRC had the following comments: • Clarification was requested on the city's tree removal policy and how this project's trees fit into that, particularly if the tree removal code applies to certain specific areas. • The Committee wanted to know if the large elm tree was remaining; requested clarification that the two existing mature trees at the rear would be maintained; and, inquired if the trees at the front would also remain. • The Committee wanted to know if the applicant had actual paint color samples aside from the printouts and if the printout colors were exactly what the applicant intended. The Committee stated if the project was approved they would want to see the actual paint chips come back. • The Committee wanted to know if there was a representation of the siding. • It was pleasing that the two buildings looked different enough to see the gables,hips, shutters, stone application, etc. as different. • The elevation was not drawn exactly the way it would actually be executed because where the hip was hitting the gable to the rear, it would be flat and not a point. • The top plate drop was hard to see on the elevation rendering and the Committee would like to ' � see the eave tuck under the other eave and get a return at the hip. The side elevation would ! have an actual slope jump, not a raked eave (reference plans A 5.2, 5.1, 6.1, and 6.2). � • The Committee was not fully in favor of the lintel over the stone garage because the stone ! appeared too heavy for such a small linteL The Committee suggested either keeping the stone ilow or similar to the side elevation shown on A 7.2 where the window is located. The ; Committee made it clear they did not wish to see stone above the door as it was visually too � heavy to be supported over such a large opening. � City of Orange—Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for September 20, 2017 Page 5 of 13 • Staff felt double hung windows would reflect the highest aesthetic option but the Committee noted this may be problematic because the bedroom windows could not allow egress. Sliders were an acceptable alternative. Historically,there was a variety of windows based on function so some variation, to an extent, felt appropriate. i • A material emulating cobble stone instead of ledgestone would have been preferred. • There were 16 Natal Plum plants called out but the Committee could not see on the plan where � they were being planted. • The Committee wanted to know why the white alder in the front yard was being removed. o Dan Graupensperger responded to this comment by informing the Committee that the tree was dead. • It seemed like the applicant was putting very small trees in replacement of the white alder and the Committee had concerns that the mature size of the trees going into the front yard are not large enough. • The Committee discussed whether they thought both homes should have the same plant palette on both front yards. It was stated the turf should come out and the walkway should somehow be framed because it felt odd to be a formal straight line and suggested be reinforced with a formal box hedge. Elements of the landscape structure was not different enough,however, and the Committee suggested treating the house to the south traditionally and the house to the north being treated untraditionally and more formally. • To elaborate on the box hedge suggestion, the Committee suggested placing the box hedges on both sides of the walkway and stop them short of the street because then the entry walk would be really overtly formal and look much different from the neighboring residence. • It was noted by the Committee that neither palette was opposed, they just wanted them to be more different from one another. • The Committee wanted to know where the vegetated swale was located. • There seemed to be a large amount of DG in the back and the Committee wanted to know if the roof water was all going into a separate dedicated drain. They noted that it seemed cheaper to just put down mulch. • The Committee reiterated they needed to see true paint chips and materials. Committee Member Fox made a motion to recommend approval of DRC No. 4981-16 to the Planning Commission based on the findings and conditions listed in the Staff Report, and with the following conditions: l. On building number two, located on sheet A 6-2, the stone shall not continue across over the top of the garage door opening and lintel and the stone shall be held back to approximately the header height of the garage door, and shall transition to all stucco or solid wood panel. Also returns shall be added on the north and south elevation. 2. On the roof plans for both houses, where the plate jump occurs on the north elevation between the garage and the house,the hip roof on the house portion shall return and overlap , on top of the garage roof, similar to how it does on the south side of the garage on both � floor plans sheet A 5.1 and 5.2. The drawing should be corrected for the front elevation for ' house one so the hipped roof portion behind the garage gable renders flat as indicated by the roof plan so those two plans would agree with each other. ; 3. The landscape plan shall return to the Design Review Committee prior to issuance of building permit to reflect changes that were requested during the discussion. � t ;�.�� _ City of Orange—Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for September 20, 2017 Page 6 of 13 4. Material boards shall return to the Design Review Committee along with the colored elevations prior to building permit issuance,and take into consideration the comments from the Committee tonight. SECOND: Tim McCormack AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden Tim McCormack, Anne McDermott, and Mary Anne Skorpanich NOES: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED � ��.� ,kF- � City of Orange—Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for September 20,2017 Page 7 of 13 New Agenda Items: (3) DRC No. 4914-17 - TOWN AND COUNTRY APARTMENTS AND TOWNHOMES • A proposal to redevelop an office complex with 727 multi-family residential units (653 apartments and 74 townhomes). • 702-1078 W. Town and Country Road • Staff Contact: Monique Schwartz, 714-744-7224, mschwartz@cityoforan ge.org • DRC Action: Preliminary Review Monique Schwartz, Assistant Planner, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. The applicant, Trevor Boucher and his design team were present on behalf of this project. Public Comments: Chair Imboden opened the item to the Public for comments. There were none. Chair Imboden opened the item to the Committee for discussion. The DRC had the following comments: Building A: • Inquired about the size of the wood plank tiles. • Requested clarification regarding the sample materials, where they would be located, and dimensions. • Inquired about the material used for the signage lettering. The signage can have a strong visual quality depending on how the lettering is attached. • Page A-4.4 shows the grain on the architectural metals light, while the building renderings show darker grain. I • A warmer color scheme will help distinguish this project from the proposed project located at 999 W. Town and Country Road. • The metal fin detailing creates a bold statement. • The grain on the architectural panel sample appears less than one inch apart; however, the graining on the renderings appear further apart. The Committee inquired if the material is customizable. • The metal panel material is acceptable;however, a lighter and more reflective metal will show more contrast. • The elegance of the long building elevation should be maintained without introducing too many textures. The Committee feels that the proposed building textures works well. • The Committee saw material samples for the parking structure but did not see any renderings. • The materials and colors are acceptable;however,the repetitive large white frames still appear I hea�y and busy. ; • There was disagreement amongst the Committee on the effectiveness of the thick, white � architectural window pane detailing. Some thought the simplification of the white frame appeared forced and made the heavy white framing stand out even more. Some felt that the ; heavy white architectural window pane detailing created more horizontality. � • Requested other alternatives or refinement to the heavy white window frame architectural ' detailing. I r City of Orange—Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for September 20,2017 Page 8 of 13 � • The elevations are greatly improved and the jumpiness has reduced with the removal of the burgundy table leg features. • The exterior composition on the center of the building along Lawson Way is successful. • The proposed landscaping enhances and complements the building architecture. Building B: • Inquired if the majority of the building exterior was stucco or plaster, and that plaster is preferred. • Inquired if the red fiber cement panels have the same depth of color in full sunlight? • Commented that the use of white is successful and almost sculptural. • The exterior spandrel elements need to be calmed. There are too many checkerboards and the elevations on Page A-4.5 appear dizzying. • A tone on tone checkerboard pattern may be more successful. • The materials are limited but the Committee was in support of them. • There was disagreement about the architecture and its deliberateness. Some thought the use of the color white was very successful and the architecture looked very deliberate. Others believed the elevations looked much different than the renderings, that the architectural spandrels are busy and that there is too much differentiation. • The architecture is successful over the leasing office; however, could be improved in other areas. • Suggested using more red in place of white around the leasing office area. • The boxes at the corners of the building could be smaller. • There should be a hierarchy and proportion in values, with the color red being the most dominant. • The Committee felt that they had an obligation to make the building less busy. Townhomes: • Inquired if stucco was the predominant material. • Inquired about the texture of the cladding and if it would look like stone or block. • Inquired about the material of the courtyard fencing. • Referencing Sheet B-1.1,the front elevation,the Committee noted that all of the stone columns are the same height, except for one, which appears unbalanced and asymmetrical. • Some committee members liked the horizontal grain of the cementitious horizontal siding,but were concerned about the corner seam detailing. They requested corner installation details from the applicant. • Could create a ship lap design installation of the cementitious horizontal siding to create more interest. • Landscaping: Commented on the proposed landscaping along the 6 foot tall wall,located along the property line between Building B and the Townhome parcel. It was suggested that an inset wall design (alternating 6 inch and 8 inch block) could be implemented to break up the massing. The use of hedge planting along sections of the wall is successful. ; • Requested renderings of the proposed transformers that will be located along the Lawson Way and Town and Country Road street frontages. ; • Requested detailed drawings illustrating the installation of the securing posts for the large fire ; gates, when the gates are in an open position. � • Inquired about the type of fencing that will be used in the pool courtyard. � This item was for preliminary review only—no action required. � , If ...�.I� � �1��¢ II�II, ,:: . . —Desi n Review Committee City of Orange g Final Meeting Mmutes for September 20,2017 Page 9 of 13 (4) DRC No. 4917-17 - BYBLOS CAFE • A proposal to rehabilitate the exterior of a restaurant in a contributing building in the Plaza Historic District. • 129 W. Chapman Avenue, Plaza Historic District • Staff Contact: Marissa Moshier, 714-744-7243, mmoshier@cityoforange.org • DRC Action: Preliminary Review Marissa Moshier,Historic Preservation Planner,presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. The applicants present on behalf of this project were Adel Mahshi, Bill Largent, and Adam Feliz. Public Comments: Chair Imboden opened the item to the Public for comments. There were none. Chair Imboden opened the item to the Committee for discussion. The DRC had the following comments: • The Committee was conceptually supportive of the project and materials but the drawings were not sufficient to accurately describe the project and could not be approved. The Committee encouraged the applicant to move forward with the concept and revise the plans for accuracy, consistency, and legibility. • The prism glass proposed for the leaded transom window was appropriate. The Luxfer glass samples were more muted in person and seemed appropriate. • The Committee was mixed in support of the existing steel bracing in the outdoor dining area being exposed because it was expressive of the structure and back from the face of the building. • There was slight concern that the color palette for the walls and doors was dark but it was thought that the brick would help counterbalance the darkness. • The Committee wanted to know what color the plaster would be. The applicant provided a plaster sample for the Committee's review. • The Committee briefly discussed the different planes of the building,between the exterior wall, the steel columns, and the new recessed wall. • The Committee discussed the proposal to expose the brick in the outdoor dining area. The Secretary of Interior's Standards say do not expose brick that has always been plaster, but it would appear that did not apply as this was previously interior space. The Committee was generally in favor of removing the plaster in this case. • The Committee wanted to know where the paint colors were going to be used in reference to the elevations. The applicant explained the proposal for the three gray tones on the exterior. • The Committee discussed the potential finish on the exposed steel columns. Some Committee members thought the columns should be painted to blend in with the color palette of the � outdoor dining area. Others believed the exposed steel was appropriate if it was in good i condition. ' • There was discussion about the proposed Luxfer glass tiles, if they were a�ailable to purchase, , and how many were available. The applicant explained that they have already secured the � correct number of colored tiles to complete the design as proposed. r�i'r� iari ��Ir�,; ��p�� .. il ' '� �� I I City of Orange—Design Review Committee I Final Meeting Minutes for September 20,2017 Page 10 of 13 • The Committee discussed the difference between the new iridescent and clear glass in the leaded windows. The Committee was generally in favor of consistency within the windows, either using all clear or all iridescent glass but left the final decision up to the applicant. • The Committee requested that the applicant provide a specification on paint removal from the brick, based on the Secretary of Interior's Standards, prior to permits being issued. The specification should include the products and methods to be used. • In order to make a determination on the appropriate finish for the steel columns,the Committee requested that the applicant remove the plywood covers to show the existing condition of the columns prior to returning to the Committee for a final determination. This item was for preliminary review only—no action required. � �-�<: � r:�`� w,� ;„� I�� ,i • — mittee � City of Orange Design Rev�ew Com Final Meeting Minutes for September 20,2017 Page 11 of 13 5 D RC No. 4908-17 - 7-ELEVEN GAS STATION � ) • A ro osal to construct at 2,400 square foot convenience store and associated P P site improvements to an existing gas station. • 2245 W. Chapman Avenue • Staff Contact: Vidal F. Marquez,714-744-7214, vmarquez@cityoforange.org • DRC Action: Final Determination Vidal Marquez, Assistant Planner, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. The applicant who was present on behalf of this project was Douglas Fenn. Public Comments: Chair Imboden opened the item to the Public for comments. There were none. Chair Imboden opened the item to the Committee for discussion. The DRC had the following comments: • The Committee wanted to know the function of the Healy tank and why it had to be located where the applicant had placed it. The applicant explained the tank holds gas vapors and air from gas storage tanks and prevents excess emissions. • The Committee wanted to know if bollards surrounding the tank were required for safety. The a licant rovided an u dated detail of a screen wall for the Committee's review. pp p P . w nted to know if there was clearance around the screen wall and if there was The Commrttee a room to have planting around it as well. • The Committee asked if there was setback for the Healy tank from the property line. They would consider relocating the Healy tank to try to get more landscaping in that location, or at least adding a tree. • There was a small stature tree on the plans but a larger stature was preferred if possible. An example provided was a London Plane, or something that grows larger than the `Arbutus'. • The Committee suggested adding Boston ivy on the tank screen wall. m the side ard. The a licant • The carbon dioxide(CO2)tank cage appeared to block access fro y pp replied 7-Eleven's current design model is to place the tank inside the building and will not have the tanks outside. • The Committee wanted to know if the color palette was grey or bronze.The applicant explained the correct color on the elevations should reflect the bronze as provided on the material board. • There was discussion about the inconsistent key notes on plans such as Sheet A3.1, #8 was j pointing to the incorrect item on the elevations. The key notes need to be corrected. • The Committee wanted to know what material the vents were made of and what color they would be. The applicant clarified the vents are metal and bronze. I� • The Committee observed the roof cornice appeared lightweight and should be bulkier or have something below it to make it more pronounced. The applicant and staff clarified the cornice on the canopy of the gas pump island would match the building design. �' Committee Member Fox made a motion to approve DRC No. 4908-17, 7-Eleven Gas Station, based ' on the findings and conditions listed in the Staff Report, with the following conditions: � , � ; � I 4 �� r'.' � a ;� ' ` � � City of Orange—Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for September 20,2017 � Page 12 of 13 �� 1. Remove the CO2 cage from the elevations on sheets A 3.0 and A 3.1. � 2. Correct key notes on the elevations so they are pointing to the respective items. 3. Add a frieze under the cornice line on the building. 4. The material presented on the material board that showed bronze as the color for the metal items on the building dictates over the clear anodized finish that is indicated on the drawings. 5. The door and vents on the east elevation should be bronze. I 6. The brick from the building needs to be indicated on the Healy tank screen walls and trash enclosure; brick shall match base color. 7. For the existing palm trees that planned to be relocated,it would be acceptable as an option to replace the palms with new palms in a new location. 8. The Healy tank to be located away from the parking area towards the property line to the east based on the conversations and diagrams that were shown during the meeting. 9. Relocate the path of travel to be adjacent to the parking lot. 10. Change the tree species from proposed Arbutus tree to London plane. And with the following recommendations: 1. One more London plane tree could be added when the Healy tank is relocated if possible. SECOND: Anne McDermott AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Anne McDermott, and Mary Anne Skorpanich NOES: None RECUSE: None ABSENT: None I MOTION CARRIED. � 7.- City of Orange—Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for September 20,2017 Page 13 of 13 � � ADJOURNMENT: Committee Member McCormack made a motion to adjourn to the Design Review Committee meeting on October 4, 2017. SECOND: Anne McDermott AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Anne McDermott, and Mary Anne Skorpanich NOES: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. Meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m. � � . ,