Loading...
05-20-2020 DRC MinutesAPPROVED BY THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITEE ON JUNE 17, 2020 Page 1 of 7 FINAL MINUTES CITY OF ORANGE May 20, 2020 DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE 6:00 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Anna Pehoushek, Assistant Community Development Director Marissa Moshier, Historic Preservation Planner Monique Schwartz, Associate Planner Kelly Ribuffo, Associate Planner Jessica Wang, Administrative Specialist Simonne Fannin, Recording Secretary REGULAR SESSION 1. OPENING: 1.1. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Skorpanich called the meeting to order at 6:09 p.m. 1.2 FLAG SALUTE: Committee Member McCormack led the flag salute. 1.3 ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Committee Members McDermott, McCormack, Skorpanich, Fox, and Imboden. 1.4 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Opportunity for members of the public to address the Design Review Committee (DRC) on matters not listed on the Agenda. There were no speakers. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR: Vice Chair Fox requested to vote on the Consent Calendar items separately. 2.1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: February 20, 2020 A motion was made to approve the February 20, 2020 minutes as emended to staff. MOTION: Fox SECOND: Imboden AYES: McCormack, Fox, Skorpanich, McDermott and Imboden NOES: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION CARRIED DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES May 20, 2020 Page 2 of 7 2.2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: March 4, 2020 A motion was made to approve the March 4, 2020 minutes as emended to staff. MOTION: McCormack SECOND: Imboden AYES: McCormack, Skorpanich, McDermott and Imboden NOES: None ABSTAIN: Fox MOTION CARRIED 3. AGENDA ITEMS: Continued Items: NONE New Agenda Items: 3.1 DESIGN REVIEW NO. 4901-17 – HOLY SEPULCHER CEMETERY MAINTENANCE FACILITY  A proposal to construct a 6,480 square foot, single story cemetery maintenance building, service yard, and related site improvements.  Address: 7751-7845 E. Santiago Canyon Road  Staff Contact: Monique Schwartz, 714-744-7224, mschwartz@cityoforange.org  DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission Monique Schwartz, Associate Planner, provided an overview of the project consistent with the staff report. Kevin Jennier, project manager for the Diocese, and James Mickartz, project architect, spoke on behalf of the project. Andy Hoover, director of real estate and construction, Craig Sensenbach and Tamara McClory from RGM Design were available to answer any landscaping questions. Chair Skorpanich asked staff if any public comment was received for this project. Marissa Moshier, Historic Preservation Planner, stated no public comment was received. The public comment portion of this item was closed. The Committee had questions and comments on the following:  Ensure that the height of the retaining wall is within the maximum height allowed by Code.  Has there been any communication with Orange Park Acres residents?  Differences in the site plans and roof lines between the project plans and the study submitted by LSA.  The height from the finished floor to the plate line on the maintenance building.  Long-term maintenance of the wall.  There are several roof forms on the project; the Committee asked the applicant to explain the roof choices.  Sheet C-2 specifies the wall to be split face; however, the renderings and elevations specify shot blast. The Committee recommended using similar materials. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES May 20, 2020 Page 3 of 7  Siding material of the pilasters.  The stack bond vs. running bond on the wall.  The project is well thought out and fits in well with its surroundings.  Palm trees along the east property line, which are scheduled to be removed, should remain because they set the tone of the skyline.  The proposed Corymbia Ficifolia is difficult to find in the 24-inch box size and there needs to be an alternative tree to fill that edge; consider the Quercus Agrifolia.  Consider placing a railing along the top of the keystone wall for safety purposes.  The intent of the finish on the six columns at the entryway. Committee Member McCormack made a motion to recommend approval to the Planning Commission of Design Review No. 4901-17 – Holy Sepulcher Cemetery Maintenance Facility based on the findings and conditions in the staff report and with the following additional conditions:  The applicant shall use the fiber cement proposal as the siding on the maintenance building instead of the precision block wall.  No split face wall material shall be used on the project.  Construction of the six entry pilasters shall be installed per Sheet A-13 with all the material on the pilasters to match the stone veneer of the mausoleum.  16 Washingtonia Robusta palm trees shall be maintained along the east property line.  The applicant may replace the 24-inch box size Corymbia Ficifolia tree with Quercus Agrifolia at 34 to 36 feet on center, or Tristania in the same area as shown along the frontage of Santiago Canyon Road. MOTION: McCormack SECOND: Imboden AYES: McCormack, Skorpanich, McDermott, Imboden and Fox NOES: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED RECESS: 7:26 - 7:33 p.m. 3.2 DESIGN REVIEW NO. 4939-18 – ORANGE EXPRESS CAR WASH  A proposal to redevelop an existing 1.09-acre site with a new automated express car wash, and related site improvements.  Address: 387 N. Tustin Street  Staff Contact: Monique Schwartz, (714) 744-7224, mschwartz@cityoforange.org  DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission Monique Schwartz, Associate Planner, provided an overview of the carwash redevelopment consistent with the staff report. Eric Liwski and Jefferson Choi, project architects, and Ryan Rush, project landscape architect, spoke on behalf of the project. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES May 20, 2020 Page 4 of 7 Chair Skorpanich asked staff if any public comment was received for this project. Marissa Moshier, Historic Preservation Planner, stated no public comment was received. The public comment portion of this item was closed. The Committee had questions and comments on the following:  Provide further information on the height, canopy, and installation of Bay Laurel trees on Tustin St. What is the program for replacing the existing King Palm street trees with Bay Laurel trees? Are there examples elsewhere in the City?  Height and canopy of the Bronze Loquat and Fruitless Olive trees.  Proposed height of the building compared to the preliminary review.  Reason for the Conditional Use Permit.  Restrictions on use of the easement.  Parking requirements.  Required tree count versus proposed.  Lack of cohesion on the site; dissimilarity of detached accessory structures. Accessory structures are far too naturalistic; burnished block instead of split face would be more industrial and cleaner. Simple white stucco block, simple white precision block, or painted white block would be acceptable.  Clarification on the panel system.  Intended support for the covering on the pay station canopy.  Lack of clarity on the height of the A-frame skylights and how they are hidden behind the parapet.  How the wood trellis on the trash enclosure is related to the design of the project. The wood trellis above the trash enclosure is unacceptable and looks too residential; consider a trellis made of metal.  The rationale behind the size of the building and the number of vacuum stalls?  Clarification of the space labeled “open to above” on Sheet A-2.2 of the plans.  Context and elevation relative to the adjacent residential buildings was not submitted as requested from the previous review.  Concern about the dynamics of the building for the area.  Not convinced that the blue color of the vacuum canopies is a cohesive design option; would prefer gray as a first option, red as a second, and blue as the last option.  Massing of the building has improved; however, there are still significant issues that need to be addressed.  The Committee cannot make the finding that the design upholds community aesthetics through the use of an internally consistent integrated design scheme.  There is a tremendous amount of pavement with redundant circulation.  The building is 40 feet longer and has four additional vacuum stations than required; therefore, the project cannot meet its landscape requirements.  Larger trees could have been planted; there are too many large bushes and it does not meet the spirit of what the landscape requirement is about, i.e., balancing the built areas and landscaped areas.  The view from the second story into the residential neighbors needs to be addressed.  The vacuum area has a wheel stop followed by a curb area that is a waste of space. The curb area could possibly be replaced with bamboo. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES May 20, 2020 Page 5 of 7  Vacuum spaces 12 and 32 could be removed and replaced with bamboo and/or larger trees.  Remove handicap stall adjacent to the street and explore other areas for it.  The intent is to create shade and not necessarily enforce the tree count.  The orientation of the building, with the long street frontage, makes it much more imposing and makes the site look completely maximized.  When landscaping matures, the layering of the plants will be fighting against each other.  The Giant Bird of Paradise on Sheet A7.4 will eventually cover the structure and should be moved.  There are no architectural lighting plans and the proposed light plan is very conventional. The lighting program has a potential to spill over onto the neighbor’s property. Consider lowering the height and moving lights inside the property.  The Committee suggested that the applicant revisit the site design, massing, sightline between the property and the neighbors, and landscaping as the proposal is not acceptable for approval at this time. Chair Skorpanich asked the applicant if they would like to continue the item. The applicant asked for a continuance. Committee Member Fox made a motion to continue Design Review No. 4939-18 – Orange Express Carwash to allow the applicant to revise the project based on the Committee’s recommendations. MOTION: Fox SECOND: McCormack AYES: McCormack, Skorpanich, McDermott, Imboden and Fox NOES: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED RECESS: 9:30 - 9:36 p.m. 3.3 DESIGN REVIEW NO. 4973-19 – PARK PLAZA MEMORY CARE  A proposal to demolish an existing restaurant building and surface parking lot and construct a new two-story, 30,113 square foot memory care facility.  574 S. Glassell Street  Staff Contact: Kelly Ribuffo, (714) 744-7223, kribuffo@cityoforange.org  DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission Kelly Ribuffo, Associate Planner, provided an overview of the project consistent with the staff report. Chair Skorpanich asked staff if any public comment was received for this project. Marissa Moshier, Historic Preservation Planner, stated no public comment was received. The public comment portion of this item was closed. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES May 20, 2020 Page 6 of 7 Axel Guerra, applicant; Don Preecha, project landscape architect; and Gladys Bowen, project architect spoke on behalf of the project. The Committee had questions and comments on the following:  Where are the boundaries of the Historic District in relation to the property?  Clarification on the building colors.  Clarification on tree count, landscape features and how specific trees were selected.  Preservation of the Moreton Bay Fig tree and which mitigation measures have been applied to protect it during construction and post construction. o Michael Green, arborist for the applicant, provided an explanation of how he conducted his analysis of his overall evaluation of the health, depth, and root structure.  The Committee is concerned about the removal of the pine trees and the intermingling of roots in the area. Especially, placing enhanced paving within the drip zone, which is the most vital support piece of the Moreton bay Fig.  The Committee asked for clarification on the demo process and replacing the pavement in that area; will there be permeable paving, and a cross-section by the landscape architect to show how water can still infiltrate the area.  Did the applicant considered placing the entry of the project on the south side which would lessen and completely remove impacts to the Moreton bay Fig; placing the public outdoor space to the north, which would provide more shading for seniors and have less of a privacy impact on the Holy Family edge.  Clarification from the arborist on why he chose impermeable pavers.  Finding a solution that is compliant with CEQA.  There should not be any crossing of the drip line with heritage trees.  The arborist report for site grading and improvements states “all trenching, scraping, compaction, grading, excavation etc. shall be avoided.” How does the architect propose to build the project and meet all the requirements?  What reasoning did the geotechnical engineer use to recommend impervious paving?  Concerns about lighting at the upper windows of the entry and the potential for views of the light source.  Can the drive aisle be placed between the two buildings on the south property line?  The project still looks too institutional.  Project does not embrace Old Towne and Hart Park and does not address historical characteristics of the neighborhood.  The project is hard edged and does not address the heritage tree.  The architecture is not specifically designed for this context; it could be found anywhere.  The Committee is not convinced that the analysis of the landscape for this project will save the tree.  There is no sense of the landscaping, bulk and mass of the proposed project, where it falls and what is allowed.  The proposed trees are too small in terms of their projected mature size.  Concerns about scraping and digging to repave the within the historic heritage tree’s root zone.  An optional site plan was not considered to address the historic tree.  If the project gets built as proposed, it will affect a historic tree that can never be replaced. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES May 20, 2020 Page 7 of 7  The Committee is not convinced that the project can be built and still adhere to all the design guidelines and restrictions in the Mitigated Negative Declaration.  The Committee would benefit from a more integrated recommendation from the geotechnical engineer, arborist and landscape architect. Chair Skorpanich asked the applicant if they would prefer a continuance or a recommendation of denial on the project. The applicant asked for a continuance. Committee Member McCormack made a motion to continue Design Review 4973-19 – Park Plaza Memory Care in order to address the concerns and recommendations of the Committee. MOTION: McCormack SECOND: McDermott AYES: McCormack, Skorpanich, McDermott, Imboden and Fox NOES: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED 4. ADJOURNMENT: 11:02 p.m. The next regular meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, June 3, 2020, at 5:30 p.m. via various teleconference locations.