Loading...
2007 - January 15 C_d 500 - C~ .d -_~ Minutes Planning Commission City of Orange PRESENT: ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: INRE: INRE: 15 January 2007 Monday - 7:00 p.m. Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Steiner Commissioner Whitaker Ed Knight, Assistant Planning Director Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Mari Burke, Recording Secretary PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None. ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: (I) TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2005-248, MINOR SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 407-05 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1775-06 - WIMBLETON COURT (JOHN C. NGUYEN). A request to subdivide a 1.57 acres parcel into four parcels for the future construction of 4 single-family dwellings with access from Wimbleton Road (a private street) to Old Chapman Road (a public street). LOCATION: The site is located at the north side ofWimbleton Court and 200 feet east of Old Chapman Road. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Item is being continued to the February 5, 2007 meeting. Commissioner Imboden made a motion to continue Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005-248, Minor Site Plan Review No. 407-05 and Negative Declaration No. 1775-06. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: INRE: Commissioner Steiner Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Steiner None None Commissioner Whitaker CONSENT CALENDAR: (2) APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETINGS OF DECEMBER 4, 2006 AND DECEMBER 18, 2006. Planning Commission Minutes 15 January 2007 Chair Bonina made a motion to approve the consent calendar. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Imboden Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Steiner None None Commissioner Whitaker MOTION CARRIED. INRE: CONTINUED HEARINGS: None. INRE: NEW BUSINESS: (3) DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 4156-06 - ZIRCLE FACADE REMODEL A proposal to complete a facade remodel including handicapped access improvement to a contributing 1912 commercial building. The proposal includes replacing existing canopies, installing an additional entrance, modifying other entrances for improving accessibility, and installing matching brick veneer on the fa<;ade of the 1,870 sq. ft. building. LOCATION: The site is located at 177 North Glassell Street. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15331 - Class 31. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve Design Review Committee No. 4156-06. A project overview was provided by Senior Planner Dan Ryan during which he highlighted one of the recommendations discussed in the analysis portion of the Staff Report was implemented with the findings photographed and provided to the Commission. The results of the removal of the stucco to expose the original brick concluded with Staff recognizing the removal of the stucco along Maple Avenue would be too damaging to the underlying brick. The stucco installation method used on the area above the canopy produced different results in that building paper and wire mesh had been installed prior to applying the stucco so consequently the stucco could be removed in that area producing very little damage to the underlying brick. When the lower pilasters were examined (along the front on Glassell Street), that area did not have the same treatment---apparently that stucco was applied directly on to the brick. Mr. Ryan noted that it is quite possible there may have been original red brick along Maple Avenue but a finished brick of the period used along the front half. For these reasons Staff is exploring other options which could Page 2 of 10 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 15 January 2007 include some sort of transition between the pilaster on the corner where the original brick material is in good condition and then transition to stucco along Maple Avenue. Commissioner Steiner asked Mr. Ryan if his experience is that restoration could be possible after the application of stucco to brick. Mr. Ryan replied "my experience is no." Chair Bonina asked if there potentially was a transom hidden. Mr. Ryan responded that it appears there was evidence that there probably was a transom, which originated from the openings where three large auto service doors were installed. The applicant's architect, Doug Ely, stated: . He was accompanied by the owner, Phil Zircle. . He wanted to thank Barbara Ezeka with Economic Development and Dan Ryan for their assistance with this project. . He wanted to provide colored renderings of the current design to the Commission. . He wanted to thank Joel Corico, Lead Project Architect with DSE Architecture for preparation of the renderings. . He wanted to provide a bit of history of the building. Excerpts of that review are provided below: . The color of the brick on the renderings is not identical to the brick found. . The building was originally an automobile garage when first constructed. The Staff Report states there were 3 service bays; however, there were 4. These were all open for the vehicles to go through. . It was converted to a grocery store and operated as a grocery store from 1930 to 1960. . In 1953 there were fa<;ade improvements which is when the building was stuccoed and a canopy was installed below where the top of the bay used to be. There is a filled in opening there which is the area that Mr. Ryan was referring to as a possible transom. . When the plaster is removed those openings will be re-opened and the proposal now is slightly different than depicted in the renderings in that the actual storefronts will be I' taller and almost identical in height to the adjacent building to the south. . The purpose of the project is to bring an underutilized building up to a more appropriate visible state. . This is being perceived as an opportunity to bring historic improvements back to the north part of the downtown core. . The intent is to improve the interior tenant space and bring it up to current code conformance. This will include ADA accessible restrooms. . The existing canopies appear to be structurally unsound although it feels solid. The north end is displaced a good 6"-8". The proposal is to remove and rebuild it. . The style of the canopy being proposed is very similar to the one constructed on the Jensen building at the south portion of Glassel!. It has a structural frame but underneath it is stucco. . The canopy right next to it is exposed metal deck and there is an interplay up and down the street of different styles. . They are in support of the recommendations in the Staff Report except the request to put a vertical infill where the signage recess is on the Glassell Street side. The 1927 photos show there was no breakup of the signage fa<;ade and they don't believe that would be historically accurate. It may also be difficult to match the existing brick if that is what they ultimately decide to do. Page 3 of 10 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 15 January 2007 . A sample brick was provided that is not an exact match, but very close to what was uncovered at the site. . The brick appears to be in fairly decent condition and the plaster was removed fairly easily except on the Maple Avenue side of the building. . The Maple Avenue side of the building has common brick and it would be very damaging to remove the plaster. . The proposal (in modifying the existing design) is to expose the existing brick on the Glassell Street side but retain the plaster on Maple Avenue and paint it a color that is complimentary to the brick. . There is a transition between the plaster and the existing brick that they will preserve. . They will work out a plaster relief that provides a termination. . The other reason for not removing the plaster on the Maple A venue side is the Zircles only own one half of the building and it would look awkward to go from historically preserved brick to common brick then back to plaster. . They accept Staff recommendations of wood windows and doors as they feel that is appropriate to the historical period. Commissioner Imboden stated that when looking at the illustrations he saw a louvered canopy and he asked for confirmation the applicant stated they would be installing a flat, stucco bottom canopy. Mr. Ely responded affirmatively. Commissioner Imboden asked what affect the recent discoveries would have on the signage on the north side of the building. Mr. Ely responded they would like to have signage on that side of the building but it probably wouldn't be a recessed sign. He wasn't sure at this time what it would be but they would work with Staff to develop a slgnage program. Commissioner Imboden asked if the plan is to retain and repair the stucco on Maple or remove it and replaster. Mr. Ely responded the proposal is to keep the existing plaster and repair it and then paint it. Chair Bonina asked how large the corner transition area from the stucco to the exposed brick would be. Mr. Ely responded there are actually 2 courses of gray brick (photo provided to the Commission) and the gray is actually the stucco which has absorbed into the outer surface of the brick which will be cleaned off. What he envisioned it to be is exposing the first 2 courses of brick and instead of just stopping right there they would develop some type of vertical transition detail. It would be subdued, nothing elaborate that would call attention to itself but something more subtle that would not make a statement "Stucco Stop". Public input was provided as follows: Janet Crenshaw. OTPA stated: . She would like to have them retain as much of the old brick as possible. . She liked the idea they are being required to do wood doors and windows. . She still has some question about the canopies. . The whole process seems a little unfinished and it seems premature to make a ruling on it at this point. Page 4 of 10 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 15 January 2007 Al Ricci, address on file stated: . He's managed the Zircle building since 2001 and the tenant has been Orange Lock and Key since he's managed the building. . The building used to be Wally's Market. It was a grocery store until 1961. . The Zircle's dream is to redevelop the building. . It is only 1800 square feet so it doesn't make a whole lot of sense for them to put this project together; however, to improve the building and improve the quality of tenants, it is necessary to do a fa<;ade program and also $350,000.00 worth of interior improvements. . All new plumbing and electrical will be done. . The building is in much need of improvement. . As far as the canopies, they leak like a sieve and they slope to the corner because the water has taken its toll and is weighing on the outer portion of the canopy so it needs to be removed. . Currently this is a key location because it's on the corner and it offers an opportunity for sidewalk dining on both sides. . They have a letter of intent from Smoke and Moes Barbeque in Huntington Beach. . They have a letter of intent from Subway Sandwich Shop. . Dreyers Ice Cream and a Deli from Garden Grove have also expressed interest in being tenants. Any of these would be a great asset to Old Towne. . In addition they will install a grease trap. There are not many grease traps in Old Towne but Economic Development has a program that will help do a grease trap and will also do new signage. . He would like to see the Zircle's do this project both for the Zircle's and for Old Towne. Mr. Ely was asked to speak to the comment made by Ms. Crenshaw relative to the canopy and specifically how it will be addressed. Mr. Ely responded that the existing canopy is plastered right now and they will be taking it down to rebuild it. It will be the same depth as it currently is but they don't want to match the canopy right next to it. It appears this canopy was added to the building in 1953 and it seems it should be understated versus a big focal point. The plan is to keep the character fairly similar to what it is right now but raise it up and rebuild it. It will look a lot better than it does now. The outside edge would be a painted metal and the top of it would be built up roofing or single ply roof, something that no one would ever see but the underside would be smooth, steel trowel plaster, similar to what is on the Jensen building. Chair Bonina asked if they anticipated putting any lighting underneath the canopy. Mr. Ely replied they will have recessed lighting but they have not selected the light fixtures yet. He assumed they would work with Planning Staff on the selection of the fixtures. Chair Bonina noted in the pictures there are seismic rods and he asked if there was any additional seismic work required. Mr. Ely responded they are not anticipating any seismic work as a result of this project and he thought it seemed odd to him to have the two rods that are at the braced frame area as they are very thin. He looked above the attic and there is a steel frame and he's not sure what purpose the rods serve so perhaps they Page 5 of 10 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 15 January 2007 will do some additional research as they haven't been able to obtain any construction documents. They assumed it was a braced frame and they couldn't put a window in which is why they proposed an opaque glass storefront window that would be similar in character to the storefront window next to it. The passersby wouldn't notice that it really wasn't a regular window. If the rods aren't structural and they can be removed then they would like to turn it into a storefront window. Chair Bonina asked if this would be a one or two tenant building. Mr. Ely responded that it has been designed to be flexible; it could be multi tenant with as many as four tenants or one large tenant. Chair Bonina asked how they would address the restroom requirements with four tenants. Mr. Ely responded some tenants could share the space i.e. an ice cream and sandwich shop could share thus share the restroom facilities. The entrance doors are set up for two tenants off Glassell Street and around the corner there is an entrance on Maple and further down there is an existing hair salon for a total of four tenant entrances. The way the restrooms are currently set up, there would be a tenant off the southern most doorway. They would have the restroom facing their space. The restroom facing the north would be in the tenant space on the corner that could be shared and the one adjacent to it on the east is the hair salon and they have their own restroom currently. Commissioner Imboden commented that he was at the site while the stucco was being removed and it was rewarding to see the project and see things developing firsthand. He had a lot of questions brought about by the work that was done recently. In regard to some of the conditions on the project, some of them seem to be going away i.e. brick veneer. He agreed with the applicant that the condition relative to splitting of the recessed sign area on the upper portion of the building could go away. Commissioner Imboden indicated he had a lot of questions that he didn't think could be answered at the meeting and he would like an understanding of how they would be resolved; however, he acknowledged that both the owner of the building and Mr. Ely were moving ahead cognizant of the absolute best interests. He agreed that removal of the stucco would damage the brick underneath and summarized the points he was walvenng on: (I) A colors and materials packet usually comes with this type of application; (2) colors have not been specified for the awnings or storefront as they will be determined based on the eventual color of brick; (3) Smooth trowel plaster has a tendency to crack and it has been an issue at the Jensen building. He asked the applicant if this is really what they want to do as it may create some maintenance issues. (4) He was not comfortable with the obscure glass. The rods are very, very small and if they need to stay in place he would prefer to see them painted black so they wouldn't be very visible. His preference would be a traditional storefront. (5) Regarding brick veneer: he hoped this would be going away as this would be the biggest issue he would have with the project for a number of reasons. If it needs to be used here and there for repair he would consider that but to do a complete fa<;ade in it he would question that. (6) If the storefront windows are going to get taller he wanted to know if the applicant Page 6 of 10 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 15 January 2007 would consider breaking them horizontally to create more of a transom-fashion across them. The way they are depicted now, a transom wouldn't be appropriate as it would be too low. He concluded stating this is a project he would have no problem approving but he thought there was a lot to be approved without having more detail provided. Chair Bonina asked how far up the canopy would be moved and how it would be supported. Mr. Ryan responded that there appears to be about 24" above the drop ceiling and only 6"-8" are required for the canopy. Mr. Ely interjected the canopy would need to move up 16". Mr. Ely responded to the comments made by Commissioner Imboden as follows: . He was okay with exposing the frame and painting it black. He thought this was an appropriate solution that would allow them to get more natural light into the space. . The transom windows are fine, he had no problem with that as well. . He didn't see a need to install brick veneer now that they've seen the brick. If there are any problem bricks that need to be replaced (on a spot basis) they may have to find a replacement structural brick that would fit in. They won't know this though until the plaster is removed so they will handle it on a case by case basis with the Planning Staff. Chair Bonina asked if they would enlarge the window area as well as raise the canopy. Mr. Ely responded affirmatively, that is what was being proposed based on the discoveries made earlier. The window height would be approximately 9' high and right now they are 8'. Chair Bonina asked if there would be a problem with supporting the canopy with the window height increasing. Mr. Ely responded it would actually be better as it would be easier to support having the full expanse of the existing masonry wall to anchor the canopy to. Chair Bonina asked Mr. Ely to go through the coloring. Mr. Ely responded that now they have every expectation that the building is going to be a lighter color and they will need to develop a complimentary color palette. He thought the best way to approach this is to first expose the brick and then pull it together rather than making assumptions at this time. Chair Bonina asked for further detail on the canopy color. Mr. Ely responded it would be an exposed metal that would probably be powder coated so it would be very durable and again, he wanted to hold off on specifying the color until the brick is exposed. Chair Bonina asked how the canopy would drain. Mr. Ely responded the current canopy has a dramatic tilt towards Glassell Street and typically they have a slight slope so water drips off the edge. They don't have the luxury to put in a concealed gutter and route the drainage inside the building so it would have to have a slight tilt (almost imperceptible) from the back to the front. Mr. Ryan added that the Plaza Design Collaborative has a color palette of approximately 16 different palettes. If they chose to select any of those it would automatically be Page 7 of 10 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 15 January 2007 approved. Commissioner Imboden stated that although they don't have all the answers at this point he didn't want to hold up the process. Chair Bonina added that he thought the applicant had a clear vision as to what needs to happen on the project based on the feedback provided and he would like to see the project moved forward with conditions that would eliminate the need for the Commission to see it again and his preference was they would only see it again once it was completed. Commissioner Steiner agreed that the best way to proceed was to get the project started and that the use of brick veneer should be stricken from the recommendations entirely. Recognizing this project is categorically exempt from the provIsIOns of CEQA, Commissioner Imboden made a motion to approve Design Review Committee No. 4156- 06 with the following conditions: I. Provide wood entry doors. 2. Provide wood window and door trim instead of aluminum frames and trim. 3. Provide a sample of the metal canopy wall bracket for Staff approval. 4. Provide a vertical finished edge where fa<;ade ends along Maple Avenue. 5. All construction shall conform in substance and be maintained in general conformance with plans labeled Attachment 3 (dated December 22,2006) and as recommended and/or modified by the Planning Commission. 6. All colors will need to come from the established Plaza Color Palette or come back to Staff for approval. 7. The existing storefront is to be removed and the openings restored to their original size. The proposed canopy shall be raised to the top of the opening. 8. The stucco fa<;ade on Maple Avenue shall be maintained and repaired as needed. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Bonina Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Steiner None None Commissioner Whitaker MOTION CARRIED. (3) DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 4176-06 - STARBUCKS COFFEE A proposal to install new signage and awnings on a commercial facade within the Plaza. LOCATION: The site is located at 44 Plaza Square. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the prOVlSlons of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15301 - Class I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve Design Review Committee No. 4176-06. Senior Planner Dan Ryan provided a project overview during which he advised that just prior to the meeting Staff had received a revision based on Staffs recommendations to Page 8 of 10 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 15 January 2007 follow the Guidelines and the Old Towne Design Standards in the Plaza for signage. Furthermore: . The proposal provided meets all the requirements. . Staff recommended either a wood or metal sign lettering with matte finish. The applicant has proposed aluminum and sand blasted letters with a logo and matte finish. . The wall sign lettering height being proposed is 16". . The proposed bracket that was modern in design has been changed to one that is more complimentary to the historic period, wrought iron with a chain. . The current awnings on the building were replaced with green canvas material in the same color scheme as Starbucks has. . The sign area meets the sign ordinance. . The sign will go in the same location as the Diedrich's sign on the building and will not obscure any architectural features. Mr. Ryan thanked the applicant for responding to the recommendations of Staff in such a timely manner. The applicant's representative, Michelle Wong stated: . She represents WD Partners, the architectural engineering firm for this project. . A representative from Starbucks was also present. . Starbucks is proposing new signage on the east and south elevations. . They are proposing to replace the awning on the south elevation to match the existing. . The design emphasis for this project was to maintain the historical integrity of the existing building. . Starbucks concurs with all the Staff recommendations. Commissioner Imboden asked if the hanging blade sign is 3' in diameter as shown on the sign drawing or 2' as shown on the elevation drawing. Ms. Wong responded the original drawing submitted shows a 2' diameter sign; however, they'd like to propose the 3' sign as it is within the allowable 8' maximum. Commissioner Imboden indicated the sign that currently exists is neon and he asked if the new sign will have any lighting. Ms. Wong responded "no, originally with the contemporary looking bracket we had an aluminum sign. With the more historically relevant bracket we're doing a sandblasted, redwood sign, painted with a logo of the green, black and white." Commissioner Imboden asked if it would be illuminated. Ms. Wong replied "no". Ms. Wong added that the lighting that exists on the building currently will remain. Commissioner Imboden asked if the canopies in the back are being retained or if they will have new canvas placed on the existing frame. Ms. Wong responded it is her understanding they will take down the awning and put up something to match the existing as what is there now appears to be a bit weathered. Chair Bonina asked what the treatment is above the windows in the east elevation in the front. Ms. Wong responded she was not sure. Mr. Ryan interjected that is existing wrought iron that will not be changed. Chair Bonina stated that with a 2' sign it is suggested there be a 10' distance from the Page 9 of 10 Pages Planning Commission Minutes 15 January 2007 floor to the bottom of the sign and now that the sign being proposed is 3', he asked the applicant if that would now be 9' or if the sign would be raised. Ms. Wong responded it was definitely something she checked to ensure it was within clearance. Chair Bonina asked Staff how material this matter was. Mr. Ryan responded it needed to be at least 8'; he believed the existing neon sign is 24" tall; he believed it was complimentary to where it was located on the building and he really would not want to see any more holes punched in the building so he is more inclined to stay in that location with a 24" sign. Commissioner Steiner asked for confirmation that it was Staffs position that a proposed 36" sign should not be approved. Mr. Ryan responded affirmatively. Chair Bonina asked Ms. Wong if remaining at 24" would be problematic for them. Ms. Wong replied that would be fine. Commissioner Imboden stated there are box signs in the windows at existing Starbucks locations and he inquired if they intended to put those in the windows at this location as well. Ms. Wong replied she was not quite sure. Recognizing this project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA, Chair Bonina made a motion to approve Design Review Committee No. 4176-06 with the conditions stated in the Staff Report. Commissioner Imboden offered a second to the motion with one additional condition: (I) A 24" blade sign be used. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Imboden Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Steiner None None Commissioner Whitaker MOTION CARRIED. Chair Bonina made a motion to adjourn to the next regular meeting on Monday, February 5,2007. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Steiner Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Steiner None None Commissioner Whitaker MOTION CARRIED. MEETING ADJOURNED @ 8:25 p.m. Page 10 of 10 Pages