Loading...
08-19-2020 DRC MinutesAPPROVED BY THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITEE ON SEPTEMBER 2, 2020 Page 1 of 6 FINAL MINUTES CITY OF ORANGE August 19, 2020 DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE 5:30 p.m. STAFF PRESENT VIA GO MEETING TELECONFERENCE: Marissa Moshier, Historic Preservation Planner Monique Schwartz, Associate Planner Kelly Ribuffo, Associate Planner Vidal Marquez, Assistant 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 5:31 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 asked to pull Item 2.2 from Consent as she had a question of clarification for the planner. Committee member McCormack asked the same of Item 2.3. 2.1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: AUGUST 5, 2020 A motion was made to approve the August 5, 2020 minutes as emended to staff. MOTION: McDermott SECOND: Fox AYES: McCormack, Skorpanich, McDermott, Imboden, and Fox NOES: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION CARRIED DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES August 19, 2020 Page 2 of 6 2.2 DESIGN REVIEW NO. 5013-20 – BUTATON SIGNAGE  A proposal to install two signs for a new restaurant in a non -contributing building in the Plaza Historic District  10 Plaza Square  Staff Contact: Marissa Moshier, (714) 744-7243, mmoshier@cityoforange.org  DRC Action: Final Determination Committee members had questions about the logo and blade sign backlighting. Khoa Tran, sign designer, was available to respond to questions. A motion was made to approve Design Review No. 5013-20 – Butaton Signage as submitted with a recommendation that the drawings be clarified to show the backlit signage and logo on page 4. MOTION: Fox SECOND: Imboden AYES: McCormack, Skorpanich, McDermott, Imboden, and Fox NOES: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION CARRIED 2.3 DESIGN REVIEW NO. 5005-20 – ORANGE FINANCIAL CENTER LANDSCAPING  A proposal to renovate existing landscaping and minor site improvements at an existing office complex.  681-721 S. Parker Street  Staff Contact: Monique Schwartz, (714)744-7224, mschwartz@cityoforange.org  DRC Action: Final Determination Diego Alessi, project architect, was available to respond to questions. Committee members had questions and comments on the following:  Height of Bainesii and Ligustrum upon maturity.  The middle of Ligustrum may not flourish due to lack of sunlight.  Height of the stake mounted up-lighting in the shrubs.  Palm tree canopy lighting.  Storage of furniture and umbrellas. A motion was made to approve Design Review No. 5005-20 – Orange Financial Center Landscaping based on the conditions and findings in the staff report. MOTION: McCormack SECOND: Fox AYES: McCormack, Skorpanich, McDermott, Imboden, and Fox NOES: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION CARRIED DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES August 19, 2020 Page 3 of 6 3. AGENDA ITEMS: Continued Items: 3.1 DESIGN REVIEW NO. 4961-18 – MOBIL SERVICE STATION REMODEL  A proposal to construct a 409 square foot addition, exterior remodel and update landscaping at an existing service station.  Address: 830 E. Katella Avenue  Staff Contact: Vidal F. Marquez, (714) 744-7214, vmarquez@cityoforange.org  DRC Action: Final Determination Vidal Marquez, Assistant Planner, provided an overview of the project consistent with the staff report. Jose Pozzobon, general contractor, was available to respond to questions. Committee members had questions and comments on the following:  The Committee recommended planting a Chinese Pistache in the new trapezoidal planter.  The Circle K rendered elevations are unclear and inconsistent with the drawn elevations. Is the existing building wrapped in stone and the addition in stucco? Mr. Pozzobon clarified the stone placement will run continuous on the east elevation.  Exterior finishes on plan sheet A-2 need to reflect the correct colors; they are not consistent with the staff report. Mr. Pozzobon confirmed that they neglected to make the proper corrections on sheet A-2.  Concern that dark painted stucco should be shown on the bottom of the west elevation.  A stone ledger or cap shown on the building elevation should continue across the building, including under the windows, in a continuous line.  There are window inconsistencies between the drawings and the Committee's packet. The callouts were not updated.  The color scheme is based on the Circle K color renderings on sheet A-3a.  A recommendation was made to carry the stone veneer across the left-hand portion of the west elevation and wrap it back to the inside corner of the existing building.  A recommendation was made to stop the stone at the back of the existing building on the east elevation and paint the darker addition a color stucco. The Committee recommended an appropriate detail be incorporated to stop the stone at this point and match the sign fascia to maintain visual balance on the east elevation.  The east elevation calls out stucco for the cornice over the addition without a color indicated; however, the rendering shows white stucco.  There is a color discrepancy for the storefront door in the drawings. Mr. Pozzobon clarified the windows and doors would be dark bronze.  The Committee suggested slurry coating the pavement as part of the scope of work.  The Committee recommended a soils report to ensure healthy planting for new landscape planter areas. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES August 19, 2020 Page 4 of 6 A motion was made to approve Design Review Number 4961-18 – Mobil Station Remodel based on the conditions and findings in the staff report with additional conditions and recommendations as follows: Conditions:  Condition #8 shall be modified to include a Chinese Pistache.  Both tree species listed in the landscape plan shall be standard, not multi-trunk.  Manufactured stone wainscot shall be used on the existing building perimeter and stucco at the new addition's perimeter.  Where stone is indicated on the existing building, the cap shall be stone as indicated on window sill detail Figure 21 in the attachment and it will continue under the windows.  The building color palette shall be scheme 2 of the Circle K branded colors identified in rendering detail sheet A-3a  The stone veneer shall be Buckskin Mountain Stone as indicated in the attachment and storefront doors and windows shall be number 40, dark bronze. The cornice at the addition shall be painted sand beach. Recommendations:  Slurry coat the pavement.  Obtain a soils report to ensure viability of the plants. Mr. Pozzobon agreed with all the conditions and recommendations made by the Committee. MOTION: Fox SECOND: Imboden AYES: McCormack, Skorpanich, McDermott, Imboden, and Fox NOES: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION CARRIED New Agenda Items: 3.3 DESIGN REVIEW NO. 4998-19 – DIAZ RESIDENCE  A proposal to construct a 218 square foot addition to an existing single-family residence. The property is a non-contributing resource within the Old Towne Historic District.  Address: 177 S. Clark Street  Staff Contact: Kelly Ribuffo, (714) 744-7223, kribuffo@cityoforange.org  DRC Action: Final Determination Kelly Ribuffo, Associate Planner, provided an overview of the project consistent with the staff report. Jay Summers, project designer, was available to respond to questions. Marissa Moshier, Historic Preservation Planner stated no public comments were received on this item. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES August 19, 2020 Page 5 of 6 Committee members had questions and comments on the following:  Clarification on setbacks; the drawings do not include any setback or property line information. Ms. Ribuffo provided all setback information and added the property, while having an existing nonconforming setback, complies with all the setback requirements, floor area ratio and usable open space requirements for the District.  The Committee and staff discussed the setback calculations. There is a deficiency of 2 inches on the north setback for the driveway.  The drawings are misleading; they do not indicate that the northern setback is less than the southern setback.  In terms of driveway width, the existing development is conforming; but the proposed development causes it to be nonconforming by 2 inches. Ms. Moshier referred to the Design Standards regulations to clarify that the narrower driveway is appropriate for a new development in the Historic District.  In terms of square footage, the dimensions of the existing shed are larger than the proposed addition.  Window details between the staff report and window schedule are not consistent.  The Committee questioned if Title 24 compliance for the windows is achievable.  The Committee recommended that staff review the final window plans prior to issuance of a building permit given the inaccuracies and lack of detail in the plans.  Is distance between the new addition and garage wall-to-wall or eave to eave? Ms. Ribuffo responded it is wall-to-wall and conforms to standards.  The Committee approves of the modest addition to a modest house.  The louvered vent on the north elevation should be centered.  The plan does not show the proposed addition and how it relates to the driveway. The Committee recommended a 9-foot driveway; it is odd to see pavement coming within 3 inches of the structure.  The drawings do not show a driveway apron.  The Committee has reservations in approving the project as there are a number of things omitted from the application. A motion was made to approve Design Review No. 4998-19 – Diaz Residence based on the conditions and findings in the staff report with the additional conditions as follows:  The attic vent shall be centered on the ridge of the north and south elevation.  Drawings shall be clarified that all the windows are new, aluminum and either single hung or double hung.  Strike the words "to match existing" from the window note on the front elevation.  Window manufacturer, cut sheet, and details shall return staff prior to issuance of a building permit to ensure that the window frame and sash proportions are appropriate for this style of house. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES August 19, 2020 Page 6 of 6 Recommendations:  The driveway should be paved at 9 or 10 feet wide in order to be further away from the addition. MOTION: Fox SECOND: McCormack AYES: McCormack, Skorpanich, McDermott, Imboden, and Fox NOES: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION CARRIED 4. ADJOURNMENT: 7:37 p.m. The next regular meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, September 2, 2020, at 5:30 p.m. via various teleconference locations.