Loading...
10-19-2005 DRC MinutesCITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES October 19, 2005 Committee Members Present: Jon Califf Donnie Dewees Craig Wheeler Staff in Attendance: Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager Howard Morris, Landscape Coordinator Committee Member Absent: Joe Woollett Administrative Session - 5:00 P.M. Regular Session - 5:30 P.M. Chairman Califf opened the DRC Meeting by stating that the items would precede out of order. Item Two would be first since the plans were already before the Committee, and the DRC may need to spend extra time on Item One since the plans presented were ones not seen before. C C City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 19, 2005 Page 2 1. DRC No. 4024-OS- WENDY' S RESTAURANT A request to remodel the exterior of an existing fast-food restaurant establishment. Property located at 1237 North Tustin Street Staff Contact: Anne E. Fox, Contract Staff Planner DRC Action: Final Determination Ms. Leslie Roseberry, Planning Manager, provided a detailed reading of the Staff Report to the Committee. She noted that there was a photo simulation to show the look of what the applicant was attempting to achieve, but did not accurately reflect everything that they were proposing. She continued that the plans themselves showed things differently; where the banding showed being extended all the way to the back, the plans show that there was a difference of a column effect not quite half way back and stops there. She also mentioned that the applicant is looking at a foam cornice, and that paint chips would be brought to the meeting to show the stucco color. Staff had a concern about a planter that the applicant wanted to remove completely, and Staff does not believe this is in line with what needs to be done. There are some roof-mounted light fixtures where Staff thinks other models are better suited to the project style, and would like to see them changed. She continued that the applicant was concerned they would be allowed to re- use the existing signs that they have on the banding. She mentioned she found provisions in the Zoning Ordinance that would provide for signage on this type of area. She stated that signs were not a part of the package before the DRC. The applicant, Mr. Marshall Wilkinson of Wendy's, and Mr. John De Frenza, Architect presented the Site Plans to the Committee. Mr. Wilkinson showed the proposed colors for the building. He mentioned that he had afull-size mock up of the roof material. He showed examples of other Wendy's sites. He was concerned about the mention of a mansard roof in the Staff Report, and in the Sign Code it specifically states you cannot put a sign on a roof. He stated what they've done in order to differentiate it from being a roof is to locate the sign between columns and only over the window areas so that it is a permanent standing seam awning, and signs are allowed on an awning. Mr. De Frenza added that while nobody liked roof-mounted signs that it was not Wendy's intent to give this appearance. Ms. Roseberry mentioned the Zoning Ordinance stated wall signs had to be on a vertical surface, and she thought the banding treatment appeared to be a vertical surface. Mr. De Frenza said that Wendy's referred to this as their fascia system. Chair Califf stated that this seemed appropriate given that it's applied to the wall as opposed to forming part of the roof. Mr. Wilkinson provided the Committee a letter from Wendy's in response to the Staff Report. He said their concerns were: The characterization ofthe fascia treatment. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 19, 2005 Page 3 The loss of security lighting, but willing to give that up if they can come to an agreeable solution between Staff and the police department. Ms. Roseberry stated that the signs would have to be addressed, and since the signs were not a part of the package, they could be dealt with at the counter, and place a condition where any updated sign would need to be approved by Staff over the counter. Mr. Wheeler said he was confused over how the west-facing sign would be re-used since it is a flat surface on the new curve fascia. Mr. Wilkinson answered that he did not have the answer to that question, but did say that generally speaking, these were the signs that existed on the building. The intent would be to remove the existing signs with the neon based signs and replace them with LED signs. The difference would be red plexi-glass faces as opposed to white plexi-glass faces like the existing signs have. Mr. Wheeler stated his concern was if the flat sign is cut and re-used, would it float away from the surface, and how would this sign work with the standing seam look. Mr. De Frenza stated that there was a standard bracket that Wendy's corporate has for the mounting of signs. Mr. Wheeler said he was concerned about the flat sign on the west sign, not the ones the applicant referred to, but the ones depicted in the drawing. He stated it looked like flat plastic sign, and it would be a problem mounting it. Mr. Wilkinson asked if it could be agreed upon to replace it with an individual lettered-sign. Mr. De Frenza said that multiple brackets could be added to the back of the can so it would set away from the fascia, and would probably line up two or three inches from the bottom of the flange, and at the top, five or six inches out. Mr. Wheeler stated he thought it would look better if they used the same signs as being used on the sides and there wouldn't be anything floating out there. Mr. Wilkinson stated this was a condition they could live with. Mr. De Frenza mentioned that there were numerous Wendy's that were being upgraded, so dumping the old sign and conditioning them to use the new individual letter signs would be acceptable. Chair Califf asked what the limits of the site area that Wendy's had control over. Mr. De Frenza stated the dash line of the property line. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 19, 2005 Page 4 Mr. Wilkinson stated that the parking was under the same ownership for all the vendors in the center. He said they might control one of the parking lot lights from their electric panel, but was not certain. He continued that they have a lease within the parking lot. Chair Califf asked if there was a parking lot light in the vicinity of the building. Chair Califf stated their concern was the manner in which they obtain the security lighting. They prefer that it be exterior of the building. Mr. Wilkinson replied that they would also prefer this, and would allow them to highlight the building, and get it to the entry doors. They will look into this. Mr. De Frenza stated they could easily replace the light fixtures that are on the parapet of the structure with lights that have acut-off lens, something to manage the projection of the site line. Chair Califf agreed with this. Mr. Wheeler asked if this could be incorporated into the fascia itself or on the top of the fascia. Mr. De Frenza said this could be relocated on the inside parapet, and place them in a more organized fashion. This would probably work better than what seems to be a random distribution on the facade. Mr. Dewees thought they could be incorporated into the corner as there will be lights there. Mr. De Frenza stated the resubmitted plans were noted on Item Nine. They would replace the lens fixtures and redistribute so that they are equally spaced along the parapets. He added the fixtures cost about $600-700 each and there was not a large budget to refurbish them. He also mentioned the level of lighting up to 10:00 pm, and after that it would be reduced to something else. Mr. Wheeler said it did not seem that the other buildings in the immediate area had the lighting like Wendy's and did they think this was necessary. Mr. Wilkinson stated that the other stores were not open as late as Wendy's and they were open until midnight. They thought this was necessary due to the crew leaving late. Chair Califf mentioned a possible condition would be if they retained roof-mounted lights, they should be a shoebox-type fixture with cut-off optics. He was not sure where the responsibility was for the applicant to provide lighting. Mr. Dewees was concerned with the columns being made wider so it doesn't seem like a column. Mr. De Frenza replied that one of the style elements of Wendy's is to treat the columzis as corner elements. He said what Mr. Dewees was talking about is to create a wall element rather than a column, and this was counter to the image of what Wendy's is looking for. He continued there City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 19, 2005 Page 5 was a corporate style they try to enforce. Chair Califf showed where he thought the applicant needed to light up the area because the other areas would be taken care of by the center. He thought the applicant's main concern should be to have well-lit areas in the back where the employees are coming and going. Mr. Dewees asked if wall-packs could be installed in the back area. The applicant replied that they could definitely install wall-packs in that area, but again, the issue would be to get the light distributed towards the parking stalls in the back area. Chair Califf asked about the landscape planters. Mr. Wilkinson stated their concern of removing the planters completely was that the way it exists on the south side of the building wall. The concern is that at the double door entry, there is a handicap ramp, and at the edge of the ramp, you would go through the planter. What they would like to do is to close up 36 inches, and avert slip and falls. He said they would remove 36 inches on each side of the doorway. He stated the planter would come right up to the doorway. Mr. De Frenza asked what the general consensus on the fascia was, and Chair Califf stated it was satisfactory. Mr. De Frenza stated they would replace the light fixtures with shoebox fixtures with cut-off optics. They would be mounted to the inside edge of the parapet sticking up over the parapet with the same distance as they currently are. Mr. Wheeler asked if something less spindly-looking as far as how they're built up there; something with a bigger base. Mr. De Frenza replied that this was a good idea, and could do this as a framework square pattern rather than have the fixtures mounted on them so now the framework looks more like a design. He asked if a maximum height should be established, perhaps 24 feet. Chair Califf asked if they were increasing the parapet height, and the applicant stated "No". Mr. Dewees again suggested the wider pilasters as opposed to the columns. He thought it would look a bit more substantial. Mr. De Frenza replied that this was the corporate continuity that Wendy's liked to stay with. Mr. Wheeler asked Mr. Howard Morris for comments about the removal of the 36 inches from the planter. Mr. Moms replied that when an applicant requests a deletion of landscaping, they ask for a list of plant material. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 19, 2005 Page 6 Chair Califf mentioned that even in terms of the plant material, because it is old, and what height they have has been pruned, they may need some additional shrubs and height where there are blank walls. Mr. De Frenza replied they would have decent additions to enhance the area of landscaping. Chair Califf mentioned putting a palm or a couple of tall elements as part of the landscaping. Mr. De Frenza stated he did not think there were any trees in the planter they were discussing, but would put a 15 gallon tree in there. Mr. Morris stated he would like to have a 24-inch palm put in. Mr. De Frenza said they would increase the landscaping along the south elevation. C Chair Califf moved to approve DRC No. 4024-05, Wendy's Remodel with the conditions contained in the Staff Report as modified: 1. Condition No. Two, strike the first sentence and replace it with "The applicant shall replace the existing light fixtures with shoebox-type fixtures with cut off optics. Fixture shall be supported on a decorative support, preferably in symmetrical locations on the facade complimentary to the building architecture." He stated the last sentence will be left in that states The fixture shall be subject to review and approval by the Police Department." 2. Condition No. Three, south side planters are permitted to be reduced by approximately three feet each adjacent to the entry, and the applicant will upgrade the plant material in the existing or the remaining south side planters. SECOND:Donnie Dewees AYES:Jon Califf, Donnie Dewees, Craig Wheeler NOES:None ABSENT:Joe Woollett MOTION CARRIED City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 19, 2005 Page 7 2. DRC No. 3981-OS - KIZZIAR RESIDENCE The applicant is requesting that the DRC evaluate a replacement structure for a contributing accessory structure (garage) that was demolished without permits. The applicant is also proposing a 640 sq. ft. accessory second housing unit. Property is located at 481 South Center Street, Old Towne Orange. Staff Contact: Dan Ryan, Senior Planner DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission for the demolition and replacement of a contributing structure. Item continued for revisions from the DRC meeting of 10/OS/OS (Plans to be reviewed at DRC meeting.) After a lengthy review of the drawings and elevations, Chair Califf asked the applicant and architect if there was anything they wanted to highlight on the plans. He mentioned the facade was changed substantially, but asked if the applicant wanted to point out any other features. Mr. Kizziar replied that as previously discussed, he had changed the front door of the garage, and removed the two-by-six rafter tails as well as removed the facia, and cut them down to two by fours so they were exposed. He also mentioned the barge boards on the end were two by eights, but the brackets were not on there, but would be added to continue from that point, and the barge would extend further out than the rafter tails. He stated the vents would be changed also. He continued that the porch would be changed to be on one side of the house with two columns as previously suggested. He said that since the roof pitch was changed, there was no longer a problem with the ridge board being centered. He explained that the windows were all wood going in an up and down direction as previously specified. It was also mentioned what the columns would be made of. He stated the beam and the top and bottom being changed to the specifications of the previous meeting. Mr. Jeff Frankel of OTPA stated they was very concerned about the illegal demolition of a contributing structure. He wanted to know how the Demolition Ordinance was being applied to the project, and mentioned a one year moratorium. He continued their position would be any approvals of any subsequent improvements to the lot be subject to the Planning Commission decision. He asked for the date of demolition and stated there should be a year moratorium from the date of demolition) on any permits issued, and the Ordinance should be applied to the applicant. He further stated this encourages other individuals to demolish the structure without permits. Mr. Frankel asked the Commission if they knew how the Ordinance would be applied and if the City had made a decision how they would act on this. Ms. Roseberry stated this had not been decided at this point. Chair Califf asked Staff if this was something that would be included in the Staff Report that would go to the Planning Commission. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 19, 2005 Page 8 Ms. Roseberry stated that whatever the recommendation was from the DRC would move forward to the Planning Commission. Ms. Roseberry read a section of the Zoning Ordinance which stated that penalties for non- compliance of any structure demolished. without benefit of acity-demolition permit may be subject to either or both the following penalties: Civil penalties. No application for permit nor building construction shall be allowed for a period of one year from the date of the demolition of the structure. This penalty shall apply to all properties unless waived or modified upon appeal in accordance with another section in the Ordinance. She stated this was something Staff would take forward to the Planning Commission. Mr. Dewees asked if the Committee should place a Recommendation in there to address the Ordinance. Ms. Roseberry said she thought this was outside the purview of the DRC. Mr. Frankel stated the OTPA believed that no other project should be considered until this issue was resolved. Mr. Dewees asked Staff if the Ordinance addressed Mr. Frankel's concern. Ms. Roseberry said that the Ordinance just stated that there were either civil penalties or permits or construction could not follow. She added that in order to receive permission to demolish something, there has to be replacement building plans in place. So, even though this was not in the order it was supposed to be, there was a replacement building to look at. Chair Califf asked if the issue of whether there was some delay in the permit would be recommended by Staff and then decided by the Planning Commission. Ms. Roseberry replied that she was not sure what precedence had been set, and could not recall anything in the past few years, but this would have to be looked at. Chair Califf stated in order for the applicant to build the project, the lots would have to be consolidated due to the set back issues. Mr. Frankel asked if the lots had been consolidated. Ms. Roseberry stated there was a map or a lot tie that she has seen, but did not know if it was signed. The applicant stated he believed he had received paperwork on this issue. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 19, 2005 Page 9 Mr. Frankel believed there was some confusion on whether this would apply to permits since there was an illegal demolition on one parcel, and asked if it would apply to the other parcel since it had been consolidated. Chair Califf replied that they would have to get an opinion from the City Attorney to advise Staff to incorporate this into the report that will go to the Planning Commission. Mr. Frankel stated that he had no problem with the new garage design versus the old one. He added that the new garage needed to be in line with the original garage. He then asked if photos of the original garage were submitted. Ms. Roseberry stated there were only photos of what had been demolished. Mr. Frankel mentioned the garage, and other garages built were required to be 20 x 20, and asked if these were interior dimensions. He said the drawing dimensions were exterior. Chair Califf stated Mr. Ryan indicated that it was possible to get an Administrative Adjustment up to 10%. Mr. Frankel stated that the secondary structure design was much more appropriate than the old one. He like the porch configuration better, and the gable direction looked better also. He asked if the windows and siding were all wood as well as the garage, and the applicant stated yes. He concluded the main issue was the demolition, and if there was no consequence, it encourages this type of activity. He asked if the Planning Commission makes the Final Determination on what the consequence would be. Ms. Roseberry stated she did not know, but would discuss this issue with the Director and find out what the process had been in the past. There was some general discussion of the possible consequences. Mr. Kizziar stated that this was difficult for him because the house was up for sale, and if he did not sell it soon, he may lose the house. Mr. Dewees stated he would agree with the OTPA stated, and with their assessment. Chair Califf stated the point of the whole discussion about the moratorium has to do with the fact with structures that have a way of disappearing and there is always a good reason for it. Mr. Wheeler said he was a little nervous about having one bracket on the front, and he didn't know if the applicant was familiar with requirement of the construction of the barge, but the DRC normally does not allow for a gable with a two by four flat out lookers. He explained what you see underneath the barge has to be the starter board or whatever the sheating is, but no two by four out lookers which means the barge board becomes a structural element. Mr. Wheeler suggested changing the one bracket to multiple four by fours to support the barge board better. Chair Califf moved approval of the project, subject to the following conditions: City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 19, 2005 Page 10 1. The barge boards on both buildings be 2 x 8. 2. The vents on both buildings be of the same design. 3. On the accessory second unit, brackets must support the barge board, not out lookers. 4. The new landscape shall have an automatic irrigation system. A note reflecting such shall be placed on the plans. SECOND:Craig Wheeler AYES:Jon Califf, Craig Wheeler, Donnie Dewees NOES:None ABSENT:Joe Woollett MOTION CARRIED C City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 19, 2005 Page 11 NOT ON AGENDA- PUBLIC COMMENT: CHRIS EYRE Received notification from City to removed two walnut trees Located at 637 E. Van Bibber Ms. Roseberry presented a member of the public that wanted to speak to the DRC on an item not on the agenda. Mr. Chris Eyre, homeowner of 637 E. Van Bibber, Orange. He explained the City had contracted with a tree trimming crew to go through the neighborhood to trim trees and in some cases, replace them. He stated he has two Walnut trees on his property, and he had received a notice from the City to remove two walnut trees from his property. He continued that the notice had three replacement trees that were available to choose from; a Camphor tree, a Brisbane box or a Bottle tree, but he did not like any of the replacement choices. He did not understand why his choices were these exotic trees and not something more appropriate. Mr. Morris asked if there were any walnut trees in the parkway, and Mr. Eyre stated "Yes." Chair Califf stated~that the Camphor was fairly common. Mr. Morris explained that the street tree coordinator tried to select what was the dominant tree in that area. They did not necessarily look at the historic value, but rather what was better suited for the area. Mr. Eyre replied that this was his concern. It seemed that the historic merits of the tree should be a consideration since this was in a historic district. He felt since he had to adhere to all sorts of historical standards, then the City should too. Mr. Morns stated that they no longer use the walnut tree, and the reason Mr. Eyre was given the selection he received was due to what was best suited in the area. Mr. Morris stated he thought these were good choices, and the camphor was a good choice in his opinion. He asked Mr. Eyre if he had spoken with the tree coordinator. Mr. Eyre replied that he spoke with the tree coordinator, but this was before he dropped off the official form. He had mentioned the Magnolia tree, but Mr. Eyre really wanted an Avocado tree. Mr. Morns stated this was not a choice. He suggested Mr. Eyre go see the Camphor tree located at Center and Chapman. Chair Califf encouraged Mr. Eyre to look up and down his street, and if there is a significant presence of a different type of tree, then discuss it with the tree coordinator. If he would like to see a good example from a historic standpoint, then he should go see the Camphor trees by Orange High School. Mr. Morris stated there were only about 15 historic trees in the City with two on public property. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 19, 2005 Page 12 Mr. Dewees applauded the fact that there was someone from the public that was concerned about preserving historic fabric even if it was the trees. He encouraged Mr. Eyre to look at other trees that might be appropriate. Mr. Morris mentioned that he had the street tree book, and could go through it with Mr. Eyre. Mr. Eyre stated he would take this up with Staff, and try to get a Magnolia tree for his replacement tree. Mr. Wheeler also suggested speaking with the OTPA to see if this was an issue they would want to sponsor and come up with a compromise. Mr. Dewees mentioned the potential problems with the root system of the Magnolia trees. Mr. Eyres stated he would call the street tree coordinator as well as OTPA. C City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 19, 2005 Page 13 REVIEW OF MINUTES: August 17, 2005 Grijalva Park-On Page Four, the top paragraph, second sentence did not make sense. Chair Califf was not sure this was a fragment of a sentence, but said the word "That" should be dropped. Chair Califf also mentioned on Page Four, where it states, "Committee Jon Califf' should be changed to "Chair". Mr. Wheeler said that trux switch should be changed to Trex switch. Mr. Wheeler said on Page 12, where it states, "...the cantilevered window was not in keeping.." Also where it states, "The Public Hearing was opened." should be changed to "The Chair invited Public Comment." Ms. Roseberry mentioned as a note, this project has been appealed to the City Council on November 8, 2005. On Page 13, Mr. Wheeler stated that the second bulleted paragraph, top line stated, "The enclosed garage storage building is not anticipated...". It should say, "...is anticipated as having.." Ms. Roseberry stated that the line stating, "The Public Hearing was Closed." should be deleted. Mr. Wheeler said he was confused about the last sentence of the next to last bullet item. Where it states, "Also, the existing residence with a lack of differential foundation material and wood siding almost to the ground was unique for a craftsman structure." This should be stricken. On Page 14, the second bullet item, the last sentence, instead of "substantial" should be substantially". Mr. Dewees stated on Page Four, it should read, "The applicant would be allowed to configure elements on the west side of the building." One Page Five, it should read, "..a design for the railings." Chair Califf moved to approve the minutes of the meeting of August 17, 2005 as amended. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Jon Califf, Donnie Dewees, Craig Wheeler NOES: None ABSENT: Joe Woollett MOTION CARRIED City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 19, 2005 Page 14 Chair Califf made a motion that the meeting be adjourned. SECOND:Craig Wheeler AYES:Jon Califf, Donnie Dewees, Craig Wheeler NOES:None ABSENT:Joe Woollett MOTION CARRIED Meeting was adjourned at 7:15 pm. C