Loading...
06-03-2020 DRC MinutesAPPROVED BY THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITEE ON JUNE 17, 2020 Page 1 of 4 FINAL MINUTES CITY OF ORANGE June 3, 2020 DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE 5:30 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Anna Pehoushek, Assistant Community Development Director Marissa Moshier, Historic Preservation Planner Monique Schwartz, 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 5:30 p.m. 1.2 FLAG SALUTE: Chair Skorpanich 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: NONE 3. AGENDA ITEMS: Continued Items: 3.1 DESIGN REVIEW NO. 4898-17 – SHELL STATION AND CAR WASH  A proposal to refurbish an existing full service gas station, including the conversion of existing service bays to convenience store area, expansion of the convenience store building, sale of beer and wine for off-site consumption, construction and operation of a new 2,600 sq. ft. drive-through automatic car wash building, and related site improvements. The Design Review Committee continued the proposal on May 15, and November 6, 2019.  2640-2658 N. Santiago Boulevard  Staff Contact: Monique Schwartz, (714) 744-7224  DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES June 3, 2020 Page 2 of 4 Monique Schwartz, Associate Planner, provided an overview of the project consistent with the staff report. Shiv Talwar, project architect; Robert Taft, project landscape architect, and Surinder Multani, property owner, spoke on behalf of the project. Chair Skorpanich asked staff if any public comments were received for this project. Marissa Moshier, Historic Preservation Planner, stated no public comments were received. The public comment portion of this item was closed. The Committee had questions and comments on the following:  The types of businesses that are occupying tenant spaces.  If the existing site concrete will remain.  Lack of clarity regarding the property line and potential easement by Caltrans. The drawings show the property line at the edge of the pavement of the freeway ramp; however, the chain link fence is not shown on the landscape plans or in some of the sections. Clarification is needed on where the freeway property ends. It does not appear it ends at the ramp because there are light poles and signage and other freeway associated items that are between the pavement and the chain link fence.  Whether there is adequate landscaping space between the fence and the freeway.  65 trees are required. Why are only 39 trees being proposed? There is no justification for the removal of the Queen Palms, Eucalyptus and Melaleuca trees. The use of Schinus Molle Pepper trees was suggested along the freeway.  The Committee suggested placing one Elm tree in the curb area adjacent to the entrance of the car wash tunnel, one in the existing Plaza, and one on the south side of the trash enclosure, aligned with the parking stalls and one at the west end of the courtyard between the 2 existing buildings.  Keeping tall mature trees that are already on site can help mitigate the tree count.  Clarification of why the perimeter landscape area is impacted given the fact that the building did not move and the pavement is not being replaced.  Removing large stature trees and replacing them with Crepe Myrtle does not sustain the urban forest.  A correction is needed on cover sheet T-1 of the plan set. The tree analysis calculates 99 trees.  There is an error in Keynote 19 on sheet A 2.0 regarding the light fixtures.  Concerns that wall light packs are too low and highly visible from below. The Committee recommended down lighting and a fixture with a point source that is not visible from below. The Committee would like to see the lighting plan return to the DRC as a condition.  Committee members provided suggestions for redesign of the curb at the northwest corner of the site.  No freeway signage, catch basin, or manhole is shown on the plans and if the site plan varies due to existing conditions that are not documented in the plans but impact execution of the project as presented, then the project needs to return to the DRC. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES June 3, 2020 Page 3 of 4  If the entire area of the back slope is not available for landscaping, then the project is not feasible. There is no way to make the required findings. If the site plan does not match the field conditions, then the mitigation that is being proposed is not achievable.  A topographic survey needs to be more detailed to show existing improvements on rear slope.  The project lacks balance between the landscape, hardscape and the building. Mr. Talwar responded that the chain link fence will be removed; the property line goes beyond the chain link fence towards the freeway and it is not in the Caltrans right-of-way. They are extending the landscape up to where the property line is. The chain link fence is not shown on the landscape plans because it is being removed. They will be building a wrought iron fence on the property line as shown in the plans. They are following land surveyors drawings. Ms. Schwartz asked the Committee if they would be agreeable to move the project forward and have the landscape and lighting returned to the DRC prior to issuance of building permits. The Committee was not amenable to that suggestion. Ms. Moshier explained that the project is a precise plan and must be constructed based on what is ultimately approved. There is a standard condition that states if there is a substantial change to the plan for whatever reason, the Community Development Director would send it back to the Design Review Committee or the Planning Commission advising them of the discrepancy. If the landscaping along the freeway slope is not accurately represented on the plans, then that would be a substantial change that would require the project to come back to the Committee or move forward to the Planning Commission noting the discrepancy. This project has been through a very lengthy review process and staff is recommending that it move forward to the Planning Commission with the conditions to ensure that it could come back to the Committee if needed. Ms. Schwartz added that there are two conditions that indicate if there is any substantial change to the site plan, the project could return to the DRC. Vice Chair Fox made a motion to recommend approval of DRC No. 4898-17 – Shell Station and Carwash to the Planning Commission based on the findings and conditions in the staff report with the additional conditions as follows:  Three additional trees shall be planted per Committee Member McCormack's recommendations: an additional Elm in the northwest corner, one between the two structures in the courtyard and one between the proposed trash enclosure.  Lighting choice for the wall packs shall be changed to something more like a down light and if it impacts the light study, then the new lighting choice shall be brought back before the Committee.  Correction on sheet A2.0 regarding the two light poles.  Existing mature trees on the north property line and Santiago shall be maintained. There was no second. MOTION FAILED DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES June 3, 2020 Page 4 of 4 The Committee further discussed;  Additional site plan improvements that need to be on the site plan.  The tree analysis table in the coversheet 2.1 needs to be verified or corrected. Ms. Moshier explained as noted in Condition #3, if there are changes to an approved project, the Community Development Director assesses them and determines if those changes are substantial. If they are substantial, the modification shall be reviewed by the Design Review Committee. The approval is a recommendation to the Planning Commission; ultimately it is the Planning Commission that places conditions on the project. Chair Skorpanich asked the applicant if they would like to have a continuance or go to the Planning Commission with a recommendation of denial from the Design Review Committee. Mr. Multani and Mr. Talwar stated they preferred a continuance. Vice Chair Fox made a motion to continue Design Review No. 4898-17 – Shell Station and Carwash in order for the applicant to revise the plans based on the Committee's comments and recommendations. MOTION: Fox SECOND: McCormack AYES: McCormack, Skorpanich, McDermott, Imboden, and Fox NOES: None MOTION CARRIED New Agenda Items: NONE 4. ADJOURNMENT: 7:23 p.m. The next regular meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, June 17, 2020, at 5:30 p.m. via various teleconference locations.