Loading...
2018-11-28 DRC Final Minutes CITY IS OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES — FINAL November 28, 2018 Committee Members Present: Tim McConnack - Chair Anne McDermott—Vice Chair Mary Anne Skorpanich Carol Fox Robert Imboden Staff in Attendance: Anna Pehoushek, Assistant Community Development Director Marissa Moshier, Historic Preservation Planner Special Session — 5:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Committee Members McCormack, Imboden, Skoipanich, McDennott, and Fox were present. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Opportuniry for Members of the public to address the Design Review Committee on matters not listed on the Agenda. There were no speakers. CONSENT ITEMS: None CONTINUED ITEMS: (1) DESIGN REVIEW NO. 4864-16—999 TOWN & COUNTRY MIXED USE SIGN PROGRAM • A requcst to approve a sign prograin and related freestanding entry and directional signage in association with a horizontal mixed-use development that also includes a new five-story residential apartment building. The proposed signage pertains to the office building component of the larger development sitc. The project was approved by the Design Review Committee on June 7, 2017. Final sign program review was continued by the Design Review Committee on Septenlber 5 and October 17, 2018. • 999 W. Town and Country Road • Staff Contact: Anna Pehoushek, (714) 744-7228, apchoushel:<«��cit,y��toran��r.or� • DRC Action: Final Determination Committee Member Fox motioned to approve the progam as written; however, other Committce members had questions before the vote. Chair McCorinack opened the public comment portion of the meeting; seeing no speakers approach, he closed the public comments. City of Orange—Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for November 28, 2018 Page 2 of 9 A representative of Western Sign, Tiffany Del Gatto, approached and provided samples of the painted white aluminum, acrylic, and other materials. She explained the process of the aluminum cut out letters, lighting, and attachments. Committee Member questions and comments: Chair McCormack commented that the plants in front of the sign will develop foliage 5 feet tall; they may not want to put those particular plants in front of the sign. It was recommended to use Blue Chalksticks instead. Committee Members agreed to condition the type of plant that shall be used in that location. Committee Member Fox made a motion to approve DRC No. 4864-16 - 999 based on the findings and conditions in the staff report as submitted with the additional condition that the Agave attenuata in front of the monument sign faces shall be replaced with the Senecio serpens (Blue Chalksticks) plant. SECOND: Skorpanich AYES: McCormack, Skorpanich, McDermott, Fox, and Imboden NOES: None ABSENT : None ABSTAIN: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange—Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for November 28, 2018 Page 3 of 9 NEW AGENDA ITEMS: (2) DESIGN REVIEW NO. 4957-18 —240 WEST CHAPMAN AVENUE SIGN PROGRAM • A request for a sign program for a non-contributing building in the Old Towne Historic District. The project was approved by the Design Review Committee on November 15, 2017. • 240 W. Chapman Avenue • StaffContact: Marissa Moshier, (714) 744-7243, nunushier�cr��citvoforan�e.or� • DRC Action: Final Determination Marissa Moshier, Historic Preservation Planner provided an overview of the West Chapman Avenue sign program consistent with the staff report. Chair McCormack asked the applicant if they wanted to add anything else to the Ms. Moshier's report. Chris De Ruyter with Signage Solutions stated this program will maintain the same design and lighting standards as the rest of the Plaza. Chair McCormack opened the meeting for public comment; seeing no one approach, he closed the public comment portion of the meeting and brought it back to the Committee. Committee Member questions and cominents: • The Cominittee commented that this application is unique and is coming to the DRC as a conceptual sign program, where, typically, signs come to the DRC for approval. Ms. Mosllier responded that for t11e many multi-tenant buildings in the Plaza, if there is an individual tenant that is changing out in a building that does not have a sign program; staff will bring that individual sign to the DRC for approval. In this case, t11is is a new building with all new tenants and this is an opportunity to provide consistency through a sign prograin. • A Committee Member stated they noticed a particular business in the Plaza that has their display window covered with photographic advertising and asked if that is allowed. Ms. Moshier responded that window signage is permitted. Lettering is limited to no more than 20% of the size of the glazing and a logo with a solid background is limited to no more than 10%. • The Committee and staff discussed the differeut types of per�iiitted window signs and maximum allowable percentages. • The Committee stated they would like to see inore specific language restricting imagery in a window. Mr. De Ruyter responded that they can strike the wording rclated to window displays on page 4 for the sign program; the only thing that will be allowed for window signage is what is detailed in E 1 and E2 on page 9. The Committee also discussed adding a condition that there shall be no interior signs within 3 to 5 feet of a window. The Committee Members agreed 3 feet is sufficient. • The Coinmittee Members agreed that the word "thick" should be used to clarify the dimensions of the letters for wall signs. The applicant stated they will change all of the corresponding pages. City of Orange—Design Review Committce Final Meeting Minutes for November 28, 2018 Page 4 of 9 • The Committee discussed adding a note on the details to require that all electrical conduit shall be placed at the mortar joints in order to avoid it going through the face of the bricks. The applicant stated that is very difficult to do because the bricks only have a 1/4" grout joint. Committee Members stated it is better to place it in the grout joint rather than put a hole in the face of the brick which is historical material. • The Committee agreed it is not acceptable to drill holes through the bricks and the applicant needs to find another solution to get wiring to the light source. The Committee does not want to damage the historic material. A limited use of conduit on the building exterior would be preferable to damaging historic material. • The Committee continued to discuss the wording of a condition stating that all fasteners and electrical conduit shall penetrate or be centered on the mortar joints. This condition should apply to wall signs and blade signs. • The Committee also discussed provisions to allow limited exposed conduit on the building exterior, up to 18 inches, if it is necessary to preserve histaric material. • The Committee noted typos on page 3, item 5, second column, "meal" should be changed to "metal" and on page 9.0 - E.2, the word "side" should be added between "same" and "door handle". • The Committee discussed sign light temperature and asked to change the maximum color temperature to 3500 K on page 4.0 — B. • The Committee requested that the applicant label the areas that have the ghost sign on the elevations on page 6.0. • The Committee feels the blade sign locations should be called out on the elevations on page 6.0. The applicant stated they are called out with the number reference of 2.0 which is defined in the docuinent. The Committec stated the nu�nbers arc confusing because there are no keynotes. The Committee recommended putting a keynote or legend on the page. Committee Member Fox made a motion to approve Design Review No. 4957-18 based on the findings and conditions in the staff report with the additional conditions as follows: • The following text shall be addcd to the sign program: "Any interior signs visible from the sidewalk within 3 feet of the storefront glazing shall be considered part of the signage and is subject to the rules of the sign program". • On Page 3.0 under Fabrication Requircinents, number seven, first bullet shall be amended to state "mo�urti»g brackets, hardware and electrical conduit shall be installed centered on mortar joints onlv and not on the f'ace of masoizry units" • On Page 4.0 I11u�i1ination, number four shall be revised to state "warm LED required (maximurn 3500 k)". • Letter "F" shall be oinitted on page 4.0. • On Page 4.0, under Prohibited Sign Types, nuniber 8, a sentence shall be added that states "if exposecl conduit is required in order to preserve historic material, up to 18 ifiches wortild be allow�ed with City staff approval" • A legend shall be added on Page 6.0 iudicating that sign 1.0 is a wall sign and sign 2.0 is a blade sign. • On Page 7.0, under Approved Sign Types, the sentence that begins with "Because" shall be struck. • On Page 7.0 and 7.1, Sign Type C shall be changed from "1/4 inch to 1 inch" to "1 inch to 3 inches" and the word "thick" to the dimensions. City of Orange—Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for November 28, 2018 Page 5 of 9 • On Page 7.1, the asterisk note at the base of the detail shall be changed to "all penetratiof�s into masonry shall ce�iter o» a grout joint" • On Page 9.0, E1, second bullet, the word "black" shall be changed to "back". • On Page 9.0, E2, fifth bullet, the word "side"shall be added after the word "same". SECOND: Skorpanich AYES: McCormack, Skorpanich, McDermott, Fox, and Imboden NOES: None ABSENT : None ABSTAIN: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange—Design Review Committee Final Mecting Minutes for November 28, 2018 Page 6 of 9 (3) DESIGN REVIEW NO. 4855-16—ORANGE SKY VII.LAS • A proposal to demolish an existing single-family residence and related accessory structures in order to construct a 23-unit senior apartment building. • 180 N. Tustin Street • Staff Contact: Anna Pehoushek, (714) 744-7228, apeh�ushek(cu,cit oty oran�c.or� • DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission Anna Pehoushek, Assistant Community Development Director provided an overview of the project consistent with the staff report. Chair McCormack asked the applicant if he had anything ro add. Darren Radac, project architect provided a history of the project and explained various modifications they made to the project since its inception. Chair McCormack opened the public coinment portion of the meeting; seeing no one approach, he closed the public comment portion and brought it back to the Committee for deliberation. Committee Members comments and questions: • The Committee Members asked if there was a minimum tree count required for the project. Ms. Pehoushek responded that because this is a senior ]lousing project being constructed in a co�ninercial zone, staff applies the development standards that go along with the Ncighborhood Mixed-Use Zoning which have more flexibility on the subject of tree count than in other zones. • A Committee Member asked why this project did not trigger a public notice to the residents. Ms. Pehoushek responded it will be noticed when it goes to the Planning Commission for the Conditional Use Permit. • The Coinmittee Members expressed concerns about public notification to residents only after the Design Review Co�n�nittee provided its approval. • The Committec Members asked if a WQMP report is required. Ms. Pchoushek stated that the WQMP will be addressed in the Planning Commission packet. Mr. Radac stated the WQMP has been initiated. • The Committee Members asked about the views looking into the adjacent residential properties from the second level. Mr. Radac stated that the second floor deck with landscaping to provide a buffer. There is also a buffer from the ground level. • The Committee and the applicant discussed various ways of providing a buffer for niore privacy to the residential area. • Committec Membcrs asked why the vehicular opening is so wide on Tustin Street. The applicant stated Public Works required a certain width for the driveway and proper access for the loading dock. Ms. Pehoushek added there is a specific requirement for driveways when they are off of arterial streets and this particular loading zone situation adds to the complexity. • The Coinmittee Members understand that a loading zone is needed and there are parking issues; but it is peculiar that the driveway is so large and will expose the underbelly of the building, especially at night. City of Orange—Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for November 28, 2018 Page 7 of 9 • The projecting part of the building is also cantilevered over the large driveway opening; it is an unusual architectural language when an element projects forward and has no support underneath. The cantilever does not fit the architectural language of the more traditional design. • The Committee feels it is mostly a very well designed building but they are concerned about the back of the building and its exposure to single-family residences. It is not sympathetically designed to the single-family use that is next to it and the landscaping will not do much to reduce the privacy impacts. • The Committee does not like to see the use of stone on the upper floors over a more lightweight material because it is obvious that the stone is not real. • The Committee would like to see more screening and articulation at the back. • The Committee asked if a screen/rolling door could be used to close the opening of the loading dock after business hours. At night it will look like a large gaping hole due to the lighting in the parking structure. • The Committee is concerned that the foliage of the Black Peppermint trees will not be seen against the dark eleinents of the building. • A Committee Member noted that in the floor plan, it does not appear that the stairs are correctly aligned with respect to the elevator on the upper levels. • The Committee questioned whether or not the air-conditioners will be below the parapets. • The Committee members expressed their concerns about the large opening. The applicant stated Public Works required this opening due to the trash service and the loading dock. The Committee disagreed with the applicant. How projects look is not Public Works' responsibility it is the applicant who designs the project. The size of the project also drives the number of required spaces and circulation. • The Committee discussed various options for camouflaging the large opening especially after ]lours. Ms. Pehoushek added this area will also be used for moving vans and UPS/Amazon delivery which may arrive at various hours of the day or night. She also noted that the Public Works Department is concerned about vehicles queuing out on Tustin Street because there is no on-street parking. • The Cominittee would like to see sightlines from the third floor residential windows facing north. They would also like to know if there are any vicws into the residential windows from thc office building located south of thc project. • A Con�mittee Member feels this project has not been designed to the site and in terms of architecture; it is nlaxed out on the site. Ms Pehoushek stated the floor area ratio is allowed by the General Plan in the Commercial Zone. • The Committee Members feel it is odd that the roof deck on top of the garage is considered as open space and a Committee Member cominented that the articulation on the parking garage is not cognizant of what is going on above it. • Thc landscaping plan does not match the bulk and mass of the building. • The Committee expressed that they would like to see a context study as part of the project. • The Committee feels that the building will not look like the rendering that has been subnlitted. • The Coininittee would like inore clarity on the maxiinuul height of the building. Chair McCormack asked the applicant if he would like to have a continuance in order to come back with some solutions to the Committee's concerns or if he prefer a vote this evening. City of Orangc—Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for November 28, 2018 Page 8 of 9 Simonne Jurjis, property owner stated he only expected to receive comments this evening; he will take the recommendations, revise plans based on the Committee's coinments and bring it back for another review. The Committee urged the applicant to conduct a context study and to reach out to the surrounding residents for their comments. Committee Member Skorpanich made a motion to continue DRC NO. 4855-16, in order to give the applicant an opporiunity to revise the plans based on the Committee's comments and recoinmendations. SECOND: McDermott AYES: McCormack, Skorpanich, McDermott, Fox, and Imboden NOES: None ABSENT : None ABSTAIN: None MOTION CARRIED. The Committee Members requested an opportunity to discuss the previously approved senior housing projects on Prospect and Hewes and the lessons learned from those projects. They also stated it would be helpful for other departments in the City to be present at the DRC meetings in order to see how the Committee's comments interact with other departmental requirements. Anna Pehoushek agreed to impleinent the request and stated that these projects are the result of a decision to allow senior housing on commercial corridors with a Conditional Use Pennit. There are challenges that come from using mixed-use development standards on these commercial corridors. City of Orange—Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for November 28, 2018 Page 9 of 9 ADJOURNMENT A motion was made to adjourn at 8:29 p.m. The next regular meeting is scheduled on Wednesday, December 5, 2018 at 5:30 p.m. MOTION: Skorpanich SECOND: McDermott AYES: McCormack, Skorpanich, Imboden, McDennott, and Fox NOES: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED.