Loading...
11-02-2005 DRC MinutesCITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES November 2, 2005 Committee Members Present: Jon Califf Dormie Dewees Craig Wheeler Joe Woollett Staff in Attendance: Daniel Ryan, Senior Historic Planner Anne Fox, Contract Staff Planner Sonal Thakur, Assistant Planner Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager Committee Member Absent: None Administrative Session - 5:00 P.M. Regular Session - 5:30 P.M. C C City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 2, 2005 Page 2 Yrr- 1. DRC No. 4031-OS-MILLER AUTOSPORTS (Continued from October 5, 2005) A request to convert an idle service station site into a Used Car Sales establishment through certain site improvements and related signage. Property located at 1935 East Chapman Avenue Staff Contact: Anne E. Fox, Contract Staff Planner DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission Ms. Anne Fox, Contract Staff Planner, mentioned the project before the Committee was continued from a previous meeting. She stated that the Committee had made several recommendations for things they wanted to see incorporated into the drawings. She said the Committee would see that the revised plans address many of the questions that remained from the prior plans. She clarified there were several different sets of the drawings to address the various aspects. She said they encountered a discrepancy on the lighting, and now there is a separate lighting plan. Mr. Miller began by stating he will take out the existing concrete slabs. He stated he wants to put in a new building in the future, but for now he knew putting asphalt over the concrete wasn't a good idea. He also mentioned that he was not going to have the checkerboard in the front. He wants to place three (possibly four) fixtures along the front, with five new poles. (It depends how the photo metrics worked out.) He stated that Staff had suggested to move the front 14 foot high poles to the back. He was going to make those look like the new poles. Ms. Fox explained there would be consistency, and if there was still a useable fixture, this could provide the lighting for that area. Mr. Miller stated that he tried to avoid putting floods on the building that would point toward the street. He mentioned that he had a new lighting company. He talked about the existing air conditioner in the back has a small chain-link fence around it. He said the Committee had previously asked how it would be covered, and he said he researched a couple of things, and had come up with a green or black dust shield. Chair Califf asked if there was any member of the Public that wished to address this item, and there was none. Committee member Wheeler said it looked like the backside of the building would be painted a different color than the other three sides. Mr. Miller stated it could go either way. He said he had left it alone. Mr. Wheeler thought it would look better if it was the same color all the way around. Mr. Miller said he was more concerned with the checkerboard and stated it was rather busy. He also added that one of the reasons the columns were different sizes was there was apop-out on the right side of the building. He stated it was a better plan this time around. He spoke of City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 2, 2005 Page 3 putting some flags (size 3 x 5) on the top of the building versus painting all over the front. Mr. Wheeler asked if the City had any rules on flags. Ms. Fox replied that the Sign Code appears to be silent on this, but a maximum size should be stated. Mr. Wheeler suggested the applicant may want flags that are easily removed so he can bring them inside when the Santa Anas blow. Mr. Miller stated he wanted to leave the lot open, and people would feel comfortable walking in when there's no one there. Chair Califf stated this was a good solution, and this was much more design friendly, and still accomplishes what he wants. Mr. Wheeler asked about the requirement by the Police Department for the fencing in back. Mr. Miller replied that he was addressing that with the neighbors. He may be putting some bollards and would eliminate the ability to drive a car off the lot. Mr. Wheeler stated that he thought the Police wanted a fence. Ms. Fox thou ht the Police would accept the bollards, but had not had the opportunity to run thisg plan back through the Police, but they would before this was presented to the Planning Commission. She said it was not an issue of access to the building in a different way then it would be from any portion of the building. It was merely because of the possible vehicle storage. Mr. Miller stated he had met Brad, and reviewed the plan, and had put the word fence on the drawing, but it didn't necessarily mean a fence, but at some time in the future, he might put a small wrought iron fence in the back. Mr. Wheeler asked if a gate would still be installed at the entrance. Mr. Miller replied that yes he was. Although he did not have the exact design, it would be the cattle-guard style. He said the idea was to have the gate integrate with the bollards. He wanted to make sure there was enough room in case the Fire Department had to come in. Mr. Miller stated that he had a landscape plan. He was concerned about the eight to 12 feet of brown trunk on a palm tree was very expensive. Although the 24 inch boxes are pretty good size, the trees grow quickly. Chair Califf stated that the king palms don't grow as fast. Mr. Miller stated he wanted to put a nice palm tree in there, and the 24 inch boxes are a pretty City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 2, 2005 Page 4 good size tree. Ms. Fox stated that according to the Landscaping Division, this is the equivalent to a 24 inch box for any other type of tree variety. Mr. Woollett stated that the box size on the palm doesn't tell you very much. Chair Califf asked how many trees there were, and Ms. Fox replied there were seven. Mr. Wheeler stated that in their recommendation to the Planning Commission, he proposed that signage not be in excess of the City Ordinance. Chair Califf asked what specifically was requested for the Variance request. Ms. Fox responded that it was the pole height and the overall height. The wall sign is fine. The pole sign is too high, and the other portion of the Variance is related to having two free standing signs along without the distance separation of 200 feet. She explained there were a couple of different Variances. Mr. Miller stated that one of the problems is that it is wrapped by two fingers of land from the property in back. Realistically, he stated, it borders the freeway and Wayfield so it has all this frontage, and is used for landscape. He stated the sign is ready to be put back up, and it is smaller than he originally thought. He wants to reface the existing sign. Ms. Fox stated that this was not considered a reface at this point because the sign was removed and the site was abandoned as far as a business, and it is anon-conforming circumstance at this point. She said the City will view this as a new installation. Mr. Wheeler mentioned the rock in the Landscape plan. He thought they looked too artificial. Mr. Miller stated he thought the rock would be very different. Mr. Woollett moved to recommend to the Planning Commission DRC 4031-05, Miller Autosports as presented and in accordance with the Staff Recommendations with the following additional conditions: 1. The rear of the building be painted the same color as the other sides. 2. Conditions from Community Service for the landscaping. 3. Each flag not to exceed three foot by five foot attached to the building. 4. Barrier gate be tubular style similar to Ford of Orange in accordance with submitted document. SECOND: Chair Califf AYES: Jon Califf, Donnie Dewees, Craig Wheeler, and Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 2, 2005 Page 5 Mr. Wheeler made a motion to recommend to the Planning Commission that the Signage on this Project not be allowed to exceed the City Ordinances. SECOND: Chair Califf AYES: Jon Califf, Donnie Dewees, Craig Wheeler, and Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED c City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 2, 2005 Page 6 2. DRC No. 3998-OS - CANNELL RESIDENCE (Continued from July 6, 2005 DRC Meeting) A proposal to construct aone-car attached garage and bathroom. Property located at 303 North Cambridge Street (Old Towne Orange Historic District) Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, Senior Planner DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission Daniel Ryan, Senior Planner, provided the presentation of the Staff Report to the DRC. He stated that the applicant has tried to strike a compromise between separating the addition from the house to make it appear as separate yet also address their needs to have a separate bathroom. Mr. Ponsford, the applicant, stated that he thought it would be a great addition to the home, as well as add value to the home. Janet Crenshaw, OTPA, stated that a precedent had been set where residents were not allowed to take down the old garage and build one that was attached. She referenced CEQA and Secretary of Interior Standards in regard to new buildings being compatible to the old, and preserve the relationship between buildings, and this was not the case as an attached garage did not maintain the relationship between buildings. She would rather see a compromise where the applicant would build on the property line where the old garage was like had been done on other residences in Old Towne. Jeff Frankel, OTPA, also agreed that the attached garage impacted the design of the existing structure by adding an addition. He stated that the corner lot was in plain view, and does set a precedent as far as attached garages. He said he was confused why asingle-car garage could not be built on the same footprint since the slab still exists, and they have accommodated other applicants in the past. Chair Califf explained that without a setback, it becomes a Building Code issue if it's less than three feet, you're required one hour construction which means that your eave cannot overhang so if there is a zero setback you'd have to clip the sidewall; it would have to be flush. Mr. Frankel said that the DRC had recently approved a similar project, and did not see a difference between that project and the present one. Chair Califf stated they may have approved it that way, but when it gets to the Building Department, the Code issues kick in, and they may have had to put dry wall on two sides, and put siding over it. Mr. Frankel stated since this project was in a Historical District, and was a contributing structure, they should try to accommodate a detached garage, whatever it takes. He said OTPA was totally opposed to setting a precedent of attaching a garage to asingle-family residence. Another issue he had was that the Design Standards weren't addressed on this project. He said the addition was in plain public view, offset by a few feet and did not meet the Standard. He continued that the DRC has denied projects in the past that were proposed as an addition to a facade facing a street City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 2, 2005 Page 7 in this configuration. He felt the Committee should try to accommodate asingle-car garage and if it takes building a one hour wall, then this is what should be required. Mr. Wheeler asked Staff about a requirement that an accessory structure could not be located on the property line if it's in the front half of the property. Mr. Ryan stated the issue was to maintain six feet from a principal structure and accessory structure having three feet on the rear property line, so there would be no space for a garage. Mr. Ryan added in the case of this particular project, the garage was demolished a long time ago, and he believes there needs to be a policy to allow demolition with reconstruction. In this case, there was no way to afford to do this, but in the Code, there was some other opportunity that would have allowed this to happen or get a permit. Mr. Woollett stated this was a prototypical case where Building Standards when this building was built are at odds with what we have today. He added there has to be a garage for a residence. If you move the buildings apart, over next to the property line, there will be Building Code issues related to the fire ratings. Also, there will be fire issues on the other side because it will not be far enough away from the other building. Additionally, an invisible property line will have to be put between the two structures, and then the requirement will be to protect both the house and the garage. Mr. Ryan commented that one of his concerns that needed to be expressed as part of the approval process was that this was not setting policy, in fact, the circumstances are so unique that the only solution is that you can attach it, and still have the garage. He continued that this is not an easy decision to make, but the circumstances provide little room to have a black and white rule, and in this case, the applicant has tried to make the garage appear as a separate secondary structure even though it is attached. He added the Committee could make their motion in such a way that they have been consistent with the policy, but this situation is unique. Mr. Frankel commented that it seemed at the last meeting where this project was reviewed, the Committee asked if the garage were to be attached that it was set back farther, and it doesn't seem that this has happened. The Committee stated that this had happened, and was moved back to about 2 and a half feet back. Mr. Ryan stated basically without causing other Variances they took the minimum reduction in garage depth, and allows the car to get off the street. Staff believes that this is probably a compromise in order to get the applicant to meet the intent of the guidelines. Mr. Wheeler stated in the Staff Report, it shows the corner boards on the house has mitered corners, and he thought the addition should have mitered corners as well. He also mentioned the house on the east side has a distinctive gable vent, and this would run into the gable vent. He stated as much of that gable vent should be maintained and a duplicate gable vent be installed on the east side of the new garage. He also said the out looker beam should be added to the addition City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 2, 2005 Page 8 as they are to the rest of the construction. He also made a suggestion about the bathroom. Mr. Wheeler made a motion to recommend to the Planning Commission that DRC No. 3998-OS be approved with the following conditions: 1. The Staff Recommendations No. One, Two and Three be included. 2. The siding on the new addition should be mitered on the corners rather than using corner boards. 3. The existing gable and venting on the east side of the house be maintained as far as possible, and similar venting be added to the garage, east wall. 4. The approval of the attached garage is not intended to constitute a precedent for attached garages in other parts of Old Towne. It is only being recommended as the only viable way to add a garage to this house due to Code requirements and unique site constraints. SECOND:Joe Woollett AYES:Jon Califf, Craig Wheeler, and Joe Woollett NOES:Donnie Dewees ABSENT:None MOTION CARRIED C b City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 2, 2005 Page 9 3. DRC No. 4030-OS-FARMERS & MERCHANTS ORANGE BRANCH A proposal for an exterior facade remodel of the existing F&M bank adjacent to the Merchant's Center. Property located at 1220 East Katella Avenue Staff Contact: Sonal Thakur, Assistant Planner DRC Action: Final Determination Ms. Sonal Thakur ,Planner, provided the presentation of the Staff Report to the DRC. Mr. Dewees mentioned that there was no landscape plan before them. The applicant, Mr. Jonathan Yochim, replied that there was a landscape plan and produced it. He said there were seven palms on the north side of the building. Mr. Wheeler asked if there were any new drawings that addressed some of his concerns on the original drawings. Mr. Yochim asked if he was speaking about the landscaping and the canopy. Mr. Wheeler stated yes, and it seemed that there did not seem to be anything that could be locked down on what was being done since there were so many discrepancies in the elevation. Mr. Yochim answered that they had proposed to remove the south canopy because it didn't shade the building in terms of solar gain with the height that it was. Ms. Leslie Gentile of F&M added the existing roof line was so high that if they were to maintain it around the full perimeter, it wouldn't have gained much because there was no occupied space on the second level of the south side. She continued that they would review with the Committee the canopy options for the south side because there are a couple of issues. One of them was the drive aisle that goes against the building so it would only to project so far before a truck might hit it, and the height would be affected. Mr. Wheeler asked if the glass at the top on the south side is not separating the outside from condition space. Ms. Gentile replied that it was now plaster because it is not an unoccupied space. She also mentioned the two glazing types available. Mr. Wheeler stated that it struck him as an odd design choice to be removing the overhang on the south side, where it does some good, but leaving it on the north side, where (from a solar point) it doesn't do much good at all. Chair Califf also mentioned that there was 24 feet of clearance and wouldn't even have fire trucks that would be getting through if this was maintained. r City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 2, 2005 Page 10 Ms. Gentile stated on the south elevation, there was no inhabitable space on that side. She said it was an attic used for storage purposes. Mr. Dewees asked if the applicant would have a horizontal canopy that would come out to shade the high sun on the south side. Ms. Gentile stated they would look and this, but right now it was a metal band. She said based on the comments they had received from Staff, they would certainly look at this suggestion. Mr. Woollett asked the applicant why it was removed. Mr. Yochim stated it was a design decision. Mr. Wheeler said he disagreed with the Staff Report regarding the building and what it says to show its relationship to the surrounding building. He believes the vernacular being used is totally different than the rest of it. He mentioned that it seemed like the building was overscale so the idea of the building being surrounded by series of different forms was fine, but taking the overhang off the south side, and using the stone only on the north side, and a little on the east and west side with no stone on the back, it appears that the building is turning its back on the other development, and saying here is the front, but our back is very plain when most of the customers will be entering from the back. Mr. Woollett stated he did not completely agree with Mr. Wheeler's statement. He said when the building is looked at in three dimensions, the south elevation is tied to the east and west elevations, so this is a block element, and you wouldn't want anything like that in the back Ms. Gentile said that with the bank had a number of these types of floor plans and there's unfortunately the back of the building that is solid and is used for storage and private functions while the front of the building has the lobby that is open to the corner and the streets. So, there's a distinct differentiation between what's solid, what's open and what's articulated. Mr. Dewees stated he thought it was honestly done. His only suggestion was to have some type of horizontal treatment to have something on the south side to protect the glass. He said it might help to protect the solar beam on the south side to do something like this. Then, the back is really the back, but there's some element it's doing something in terms of its solar orientation, and it becomes more of an honest gesture. Ms. Gentile replied that they could add an element to have some solar protection, but also the fritted glass would do more than the canopy would. They would have the Committee review it before the plan check. Mr. Woollett asked how the corner would be detailed. Ms. Gentile replied that in the past, there was a true stone dimension where the corner of the stone was, and this could be detailed in this fashion. She explained how the last contractor corner-mitered right at the corner, and it looked fine. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 2, 2005 Page 11 There was some general discussion about the color scheme of the building. Mr. Dewees wanted to know what the Landscape Manager, Howard Morris, had suggested for the landscaping. The applicants stated they had not seen the report until today, but they had received a planting list. They only knew the vertical landscaping should be integrated into the project. Mr. Woollett wondered if the bank lane was used for anything. Ms. Gentile explained that there was a drawer that came out to the customer on the driver's side. Although it is not used as much as the pneumatic system, and they can put planting in that area, they would do it. There was some discussion whether the Landscape Plan would get approved this evening. Chair Califf stated if it wasn't approved tonight, it would have to come back to DRC, and Mr. Dewees remarked that he would like to approve the landscape, but he wasn't sure what the plan was. Ms. Gentile asked if the Committee could approve the Landscape Plan as a condition before a permit was granted. Chair Califf replied that he did not consider as critical as some parts of the approval although the DRC did like to have a plan that specifies what is to be done so when it is done, it can be checked. It was clarified this Item was for Final Determination. Mr. Wheeler said he was still a bit concerned about the inconsistencies of the drawings they were seeing. He would be more comfortable if they had drawings that reflected more of what they were doing. It wasn't a big thing, but there were questions on some of the canopies shown on the elevations don't match each other, and is very hard to figure out what the mechanical screening is going to look like from the drawings they were viewing. He wasn't sure if this was a problem or if they could say it would be based on the rendering provided, and not on the graphic projections. Mr. Yochim stated that the rendering was a more complete design review. He continued that what they presented at the time was more of a schematic scheme with the canopies being reviewed at a later date. Mr. Wheeler asked if there was a rendering showing from the other direction, and the applicant stated no. Mr. Woollett asked if it was an open screen or a solid screen that comes with air ventilation on the drawing. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 2, 2005 Page 12 Mr. Yochim responded that it was a louvered type screen so ventilation would go through, so it's open on top. Mr. Woollett commented on how you could see through the louvers if they were pointed a certain way. Ms. Gentile explained that if you looked at them sight line ways, you wouldn't be able to see through them. She said the louvers usually have a z-shaped to them and have a lock so there were more substantial. Mr. Woollett moved to approve DRC No. 4030-OS in accordance with the past recommendations of the Planning Staff Review except Item Two, and with the following condition: 1. The Landscape Plan be submitted to the DRC. SECOND: Jon Califf AYES: Donnie Dewees, Craig Wheeler, and Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 2, 2005 Page 13 4. DRC No. 4035-OS- SUNNY SLOPE TREES A proposal to construct a new 504 sq. ft. sales office and site improvements including a sign for a wholesale tree farm. Property located at 1545 N. Glassell Street Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, Senior Planner Historic Preservation DRC Action: Recommendation to Planning Commission Mr. Daniel Ryan, Senior Planner, explained that this Item was a recommendation to the Planning Commission and then provided the presentation of the Staff Report to the DRC. The applicant, Mr. Todd Flammer, explained the parking area. He said that most of it would be D&G asphalt on each end for the 30 x 30 set back coming in. At mid-point, there will be a loading and off-loading area next to the employee parking in between product with the access road next to the flood control channel. Mr. Woollett asked about a property line on the drawing. Mr. Flammer replied yes, but they also wanted to incorporate an un-climbable fence along the property line as more of a deterrent and the actual cargo container is the style of trailer they'll be using. He said this would be used as a deterrent for the tractor and a few shovels so kids will not come into this area and drive the tractor. Mr. Flammer pointed out an area that will be void of plants, and all the plants would be along the fence against another property line, which is the Edison property line. He added that the Water Flood Control would be on the south side, and to the north side, it is and Edison easement with Village Nurseries that has an actual lease on it right now. Mr. Woollett asked about the un-climbable wall. Mr. Flammer explained this fencing was a type you couldn't put your feet in. Chair Califf stated it was like chain link, but it was made with 3/a" width openings. Mr. Flammer stated what was existing presently was elevation differences between two properties. He added there were elevation differences between two properties with railroad ties that are retaining back and forth along the north property line. He said he just wanted to separate himself from the other nursery and to create another deterrent. Mr. Wheeler mentioned that he had walked to Newark, which is the street south of the nursery and spoke with a few residents in the area. He said in speaking with the residents, they were wondering if there would be a P.A. system, and the applicant stated no. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 2, 2005 Page 14 The applicant added that there would be no working lights at night. He prides his nursery on being a clean and well-run operation. He explained that his landscapers had no space to take their customers so they could show them what the trees look like or what trees are available. So, he was getting a lot of complaints from his landscapers. Mr. Ryan stated the reason this Item will go to the Planning Commission is because the property is unzoned and needs a zone change. The proposed use will meet the intent of the proposed zoning. It will be a General Plan Open Space to Un-zone. He thought he had recommended that there be an address on the sign along with matching colors. The applicant discussed the colors to be used. Chair Califf moved to recommend approval to the Planning Commission on subject development as presented subject to the recommendations contained in the Staff Report. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Jon Califf, Donnie Dewees, Craig Wheeler, and Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 2, 2005 Page 15 Chair Califf made a motion to adjourn the DRC meeting. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Jon Califf, Donnie Dewees, Craig Wheeler, and Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED