Loading...
09-16-2020 DRC MinutesAPPROVED BY THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE ON OCTOBER 7, 2020 Page 1 of 7 FINAL MINUTES CITY OF ORANGE September 16, 2020 DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE 5:30 p.m. STAFF PRESENT VIA GOTOMEETING TELECONFERENCE: Bill Crouch, Community Development Director 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 5:32 p.m. 1.2 FLAG SALUTE: Committee Member 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: The Committee asked to discuss items 2.3 and 2.4. 2.1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: AUGUST 2, 2020 2.2 DESIGN REVIEW NO. 4967-19 – MARTIN RESIDENCE  Final review of porch rehabilitation details for a single-family residence. The property is a contributing resource to the National Register-listed Old Towne Historic District. The Design Review Committee approved the project on June 5, 2019.  425 E. Sycamore Avenue  Staff Contact: Kelly Ribuffo, (714) 744-7223, kribuffo@cityoforange.org  DRC Action: Final Determination DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES September 16, 2020 Page 2 of 7 A motion was made to approve the September 2, 2020 minutes as emended to staff and Design Review No. 4967-19 – Martin Residence as submitted. MOTION: Fox SECOND: McDermott AYES: McCormack, Skorpanich, McDermott, Imboden, and Fox NOES: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION CARRIED 2.3 DESIGN REVIEW NO. 5015-20 – SINCHAI EYE CENTER MONUMENT SIGN  A proposal for a new monument sign for a medical office building. The property is a non-contributing resource to the National Register-listed Old Towne Historic District.  439 E. Chapman Avenue  Staff Contact: Kelly Ribuffo, (714) 744-7223, kribuffo@cityoforange.org  DRC Action: Final Determination Committee members had questions and comments on the following:  Drawings should be modified to include the paint colors that were referenced in the staff report and color board that was submitted.  Intent of keeping the existing slump stone diagonal wall at the corner intersection that formerly held the monument sign.  Does the existing abandoned sign monument/wall meet all zoning code requirements and should it continue as a legal non-conforming condition if it does not meet the current requirements?  Completely removing the wall may be problematic; consider reducing the height of the wall and placing a cap on it.  The Committee is concerned that the wall is an inviting sign location for banners. A motion was made to approve Design Review No. 5015-20 – Sinchai Eye Center Monument Sign based on the findings and conditions in the staff report, with an additional condition that the paint colors that were submitted on the color board shall be integrated into the drawings and with a recommendation that the wall at the corner of the property should be lowered or removed at the discretion of the applicant. MOTION: Fox SECOND: Imboden AYES: McCormack, Skorpanich, McDermott, Imboden, and Fox NOES: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION CARRIED 2.4 DESIGN REVIEW NO. 5003-20 – TARGET EXPANSION  A proposal to convert an existing garden center into an enclosed building addition and minor site improvements for an existing Target retail store.  Address: 2191 N. Tustin Street  Staff Contact: Monique Schwartz, 714-744-7224, mschwartz@cityoforange.org  DRC Action: Final Determination DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES September 16, 2020 Page 3 of 7 Committee members had questions and comments on the following:  The purpose of Condition #17 regarding the 18 trees. There is no reason to remove the existing trees. It would be acceptable for the applicant to replace diseased or dead trees with same or different species, as long as they provide the proper screening.  The current trees, at their current form and height, provide proper screening.  Committee suggested amending Condition #17 to replace the word "said" in sentence two with "diseased or damaged" Canary Island Pine… Justin Becker, of Kimley-Horn, spoke on behalf of Target and stated that they do not prefer to remove any of the trees and will only replace dead trees. A condition to maintain and trim the trees is acceptable to the applicant team. A motion was made to approve Design Review No. 5003-20 – Target Expansion subject to the conditions and findings in the staff report, and with an amendment to Condition #17 to replace the word "said" in sentence two with "diseased or damaged" Canary Island Pine. A recommendation was made to amend the motion to completely remove the first sentence in Condition #17. Replace the word "said" in the second sentence with "Canary Island Pine shall be removed and replaced with additional Saratoga Laurel trees that are called out on the plan set, and the applicant shall confirm, identify, and locate on the plan set any existing trees that need to be replaced due to improper trimming that presents hazardous conditions." MOTION: Fox SECOND: Imboden AYES: McCormack, Skorpanich, McDermott, Imboden, and Fox NOES: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION CARRIED 3. AGENDA ITEMS: Continued Items: NONE New Agenda Items: 3.1 DESIGN REVIEW NO. 4890-16 – ORANGE PACKING HOUSE  Recommendation to the Community Development Director on final landscape and lighting plans and material choices prior to building permit issuance. The project for site improvements at a historic packing house property was recommended for approval by the Design Review Committee on June 17, 2020 and approved by the Planning Commission on August 3, 2020.  Address: 426 W. Almond Avenue, Old Towne Historic District  Staff Contact: Marissa Moshier, (714) 744-7243, mmoshier@cityoforange.org  DRC Action: Recommendation to Community Development Director DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES September 16, 2020 Page 4 of 7 Marissa Moshier, Historic Preservation Planner, provided an overview of the project consistent with the staff report. Leason Pomeroy and Al Ricci, project representatives, were available to answer questions. Committee members had questions and comments on the following:  Is the memorial outline of the shed in the pavement intended to represent the original configuration, another one from the historic period, or is it its current configuration? Ms. Moshier stated it is the current configuration.  An aerial photo would be helpful to illustrate the building that would have existed during the period of significance. A condition should be added to include that the memorial outline of this building is to be determined, by staff, based on the 1938 aerial photo from the period of significance o Mr. Pomeroy stated Sheet 7 shows the large rectangle that would indicate the building form that is represented in one of the photographs.  Minutes from the prior DRC meeting included a recommendation that "the footprint of the existing shed that is to be demolished shall be designated in the pavement through some means such as concrete ribbon or an alternate paving material." o Mr. Pomeroy stated he tried to minimize the outline with a continuous and permanent 3/8" steel edge of a plate that would be polished by the automobiles driving over it. The Fire Department is asking for a striped lane, there is also parking and handicap striping.  Will the replacement door match the existing front door of the church and if it will be painted the same color?  What pervious paving materials will be used?  Maintenance for the variety of Date Palms and the placement of the San Pedro cactus. o Mr. Pomeroy stated the City’s reviewing landscape coordinator asked that the San Pedro cactus be removed from the plan; however, he prefers to keep the cactus.  The fire striping is discordant with the historic setting. Consider minimizing the conflict by painting striping a different color, such as green, to make it less obtrusive. The linear nature of the parking lot seems to eliminate any confusion about the drive aisle for fire trucks. The Committee recommended the City reconsider the necessity of striping and whether or not there is a reasonable alternative that would be less destructive to the historic nature of the property. o Mr. Pomeroy stated he does not see a need to stripe the fire lane; there will be red curbs in place.  The wall packs and pole lights are the same fixture which minimizes clutter on the site.  The Committee asked Mr. Pomeroy if he would be amenable to a condition regarding the outline, that it be changed to be most in line with the 1938 aerial and that the memorial marker be maintained in perpetuity. o Mr. Pomeroy agreed to the condition. Chair Skorpanich opened the item for public comment. Ms. Moshier stated staff did not receive any public comment on this item. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES September 16, 2020 Page 5 of 7 Chair Skorpanich closed public comment. A motion was made for a recommendation of approval to the Community Development Director of Design Review No. 4890-16 – Orange Packing House subject to the conditions and findings in the staff report with the additional conditions and recommendations as follows: Conditions:  The memorial outline of the building, which is to be demolished, shall replicate the 1938 aerial and the marker shall be maintained in perpetuity.  The five palm trees furthest south against the east property line on the site plan shall be replaced with London plane trees. Recommendations:  The appropriate City staff should work with the applicant to determine any requirement for striping of the fire lane. The DRC recommended removing it if it is not required, and if it is required, to consider alternatives that are less impactful to the historic site.  The project should maintain the San Pedro cactus as shown in the plans. MOTION: Imboden SECOND: McCormack AYES: McCormack, Skorpanich, McDermott, Imboden, and Fox NOES: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION CARRIED Recess: 7:05 - 7:10 p.m. 3.2 DESIGN REVIEW NO. 4969-19 – COHEN RESIDENTIAL PROJECT  A proposal to amend the Orange-Olive Specific Plan and redevelop an existing 2.9-acre multi-tenant commercial shopping center with 32, two-story detached residential condominium units and related site improvements.  Address: 1997 N. Orange Olive Road and 301-343 E. Grove Avenue  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. Ken Ryan, spoke on behalf of the project. David Cohn, Phil Schwartze, Peter Duarte, Cory Mack, Lindsay Ortega, Alia Hokuki, and Lui Hung were all available to respond to questions. Chair Skorpanich opened the item for public comment. Ms. Schwartz read letters received from Shaffer Street residents, Dan Graupensperger and Lisa Miller, in opposition of the project due to parking, privacy impacts, and landscape maintenance. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES September 16, 2020 Page 6 of 7 Chair Skorpanich closed public comment. Committee members had questions and comments on the following:  Clarification on landscape maintenance enforcement for Phases 1 and 2.  Measures available to neighbors for mitigating parking impacts?  Parking requirements in the Specific Plan area versus the R-3 zone standards. Ms. Schwartz explained that there is a 6.6 differential in parking spaces; the Specific Plan requires 92 spaces and an R-3 development requires 98.6 parking spaces.  How do open space requirements compare?  What is the difference between the R-3 rear setbacks outside of the Specific Plan versus the open space that is provided? o Ms. Schwartz responded that an R-3 development requires a 10-foot rear yard setback for buildings that are one or two-stories. R-1 development standards require a 10-foot rear yard setback for 1-story and 20 feet for 2-story buildings. The project setbacks are 11.5 feet to 15 feet along the east property line which are greater than the requirements of the R-3 zone.  The maintenance of the trees for visual screening on Lots 25 to 30 along the east property line should be conditioned as requirements in the project’s CC&R’s.  Did the meeting between staff and the Gabrieleno Nation Tribe raise any concerns not otherwise covered in the Mitigated Negative Declaration?  Sight line attachment does not correspond to building elevations on Lots 26 and 28.  The large second story windows in Plan 1, on Lots 26 and 28, should be split into two windows with diffused glass to protect the privacy of adjacent neighbors.  The deck in Plan 3, on Lot 25 appears to have a view into the neighbor's yard.  The Plan 2 elevations on Lots 27 and 29 also have a view into the neighbor's yard. Windows in the master bedroom could be split into two separate windows and placed in the corners of the room.  Trees can be planted closer together to further reduce privacy impacts.  The Committee prefers the plan allocation of architectural styles to remain the same. If it cannot remain the same, then, there shall be no more than two of the same style houses in a row.  Cypress and Brisbane Box trees are good choices for the project; however, consider planting additional Italian Cypress trees and place them closer together to further reduce privacy impacts.  Grading and the retaining wall on the Orange Olive Road frontage.  The modern Spanish and Wrightian styles should have a different soffit and overhang.  The east side of the property is privately maintained and the site plan shows trees in that area. How will the trees be maintained in perpetuity if they are in the backyards of these units?  What is the exposure from the balconies on the east property line? o Mr. Ryan stated that a 60-inch wall can be included on the balcony.  Will balconies on the north side of the property impact the neighbors? Mr. Ryan stated that the windows have a view into the side yards.  There is 2.5 foot grade difference between the back of sidewalk and the fence. Will there be a retaining wall? DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES September 16, 2020 Page 7 of 7  Lots 5, 7 and 8 have infrastructure conflicts with trees.  The differentiation in the ground plane is rather busy.  Who will control the porch lights?  Some of the comments from the public are outside of the DRC's purview. The Committee does not want the public to think their questions and comments are being ignored. Those issues are more appropriately addressed by the Planning Commission and City Council. Mr. Ryan agreed with diffused windows, splitting the master bedroom windows, raising balcony walls, and requiring that the CC&R's specify landscape maintenance. A motion was made to recommend approval to the Planning Commission of Design Review No. 4969-19 – Cohen Residential Project subject to the conditions and findings in the staff report and with additional conditions as follows:  The maintenance of the trees along the east property line for Lots 25 through 30 shall be stipulated in the CC&R's to retain visual screening of neighboring properties.  The HOA shall maintain irrigation for trees along the east property line.  For Lot 25, Plan 3 D, the upstairs deck shall have a 60 inch privacy wall facing east.  Second story east facing windows on Lots 25, 26, 28 and 30 shall have diffused glass.  The second story master bathroom and vestibule windows on Lots 27 and 29 shall be diffused glass, and the master bedroom windows are to be either diffused or split and placed in the corners of the room.  Italian Cypress trees along the east property line shall be placed at 8 foot centers where screening is needed for Lots 27 and 29.  If the plan allocation changes, there shall be no more than two lots in a row with the same architectural style option.  The side wall adjacent to Orange Olive Road and Grove Avenue shall be partially retaining in order to make the transition to the street level. MOTION: Imboden SECOND: McCormack AYES: McCormack, Skorpanich, McDermott, Imboden, and Fox NOES: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION CARRIED 4. ADJOURNMENT: 8:58 p.m. The next regular meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, October 7, 2020, at 5:30 p.m. via various teleconference locations.