Loading...
1995-03-08 Final DRC MinutesCity of Orange Design Review Board MINUTES for Wednesday, March 8, 1995 Board Members Present: Board Members Absent: Staff Attendance Administrative Session - Robert Hornacek Beau Shigetomi, Chair Erika Wolfe David Kent Steven Prothero Jim Donovan, Associate Planner Howard Morns, Landscape Coordinator Dan Ryan, Senior Planner 1) Review minutes for February 22, 1995; preview applications listed on this agenda. Dan Ryan (staff) reported that a request has been received by Mr. Chuck Ebert, that the board be willing to discuss an item that was last reviewed and continued on February 8, 1995 (D.R.B. application no. 3027). Although the application is not listed on the evening's agenda, review could occur as an urgent matter, and added to the agenda if the board were to approve Mr. Ebert's request by a majority vote of four members. Since there were only three members present, the board declined to act on the request. Regular Session - MOTION by Erika Wolfe to approve the minutes as recorded. SECOND by Robert Hornacek. AYES: Robert Hornacek, Beau Shigetomi and Erika. Wolfe NOES: None ABSENT: David Kent and Steven Prothero MOTION CARRIED Final Reviews - CITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Meefing Minutes for March 8, 1995 Page 2 2) DRB 2993 -PACIFIC GATEWAY HOMES TRACTS 14983 AND 14984: "THE COTTAGES" AND "THE VILLAGES" Final landscaping and irrigation review for amulti-family residential project. Applicants were represented by Gina. Gordon and Mike Piering of Pacific Gateway Homes, and by Andy Boden, Landscape Architect from Land Concern, Ltd. The project was presented and reviewed according to tracts: Tract No. 14983; "The Village"--- Mr. Shigetomi's packet lacked a planting plan for the recreation area. Mr. Boden briefly reviewed a copy of the proposal. Howard Morris (staff): There is no tree legend provided on the planting plans. Only plant sizes and locations have been specified. Mr. Boden: His company will make selections according to availability, when the planting plan is implemented. Mr. Morris: The board cannot make a decision as to the quality or acceptability of the planting plan unless the plant species are known. Mr. Boden: A legend can be provided, if required. Ms. Wolfe: It is required. We need to see something more specific. Mr. Morris: What about the treatment of the entryway at Crawford Canyon Road? The tract plan refers to another sheet, but that sheet was not provided within the package of plans. Mr. Boden had a copy of the proposal in his possession. There is a line of sight (or sight-distance) requirement with which to contend, so the plants are of relatively low-lying species near the street intersection. Mr. Shigetomi had reservations about some of the tree selections toward the interior. Cypress trees, especially, will die out relatively quickly. Mr. Morris: Hydroseed mix is also short-lived. Most of these plants will be dead in 3 to 5 years. Mr. Boden pointed out that planting details are provided in layered plans, so that trees are on one page, shrubs on another, and groundcover on a third. There is actually a high shrub content proposed in this area. The groundcover is an intermediate slope mix, intended to be displaced by shrubs as they mature. Additionally, fuel modification requirements (by Fire Department) have influenced the planting palette. CITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Meeting Minutes for March 8, 1995 Page 3 Mr. Shigetomi: Maintenance (or lack of it) is often a bigger issue, so far as the Fire Department is concerned. Mr. Boden led review of the planting palette. "Mass drifts" have been created along the tract's perimeter. Shrubs will eventually overtake the groundcover. Tree planting plans reflect some concern for views from each residence. The developer wishes to avoid conflict among individual homeowners in the future. Mr. Morris: The applicant should also specify the wet zones and dry zones on fuel modification plans. Separate irrigation plans must be provided. Mr. Boden: Is it possible to make these corrections through plan check, or do plans need to be returned to D.R.B.? Mr. Morris: Irrigation plans may be revised in plan check. If the board is willing to accept the proposal as submitted, final plans may be reviewed by staff. Mr. Shigetomi would like to see a more permanent groundcover along Crawford Canyon Road. Mr. Morris: The staff will also need to coordinate the landscaping plans with grading plans. Other departments may be concerned about encroachment issues (underground irrigation lines that cross public rights of way), street improvement plans; treatment around the public water tank. Comprehensive plans will need to be reviewed and coordinated. It would also be in the applicant's best interests to install water sensors to avoid over-watering (and slope failure). Tract No. 14984; "The Cottages"--- Mr. Boden: The two proposals are quite similar. (The board agreed). Discussion addressed sloped areas and the selection of plant material. Mr. Morris: Planting details need to be revised according to city standards. Street tree details should also be provided. Mr, Shigetomi: The slopes in this tract are highly visible from the roadway. He didn't think adequate plant material was proposed. Mr. Boden realized that some detail had been omitted from the plan. There is some confusion about the legend; bonsai species of trees were to be proposed here. The applicants are also proposing mass drifts of shrubs along the roadway. The size of most trees would be bigger than guidelines otherwise allow. It was also noted that a tree legend was provided on this set of plans. Mr. Boden now recalled that the same legend would apply to plans for "the Village" (Tract 14983). Mr. Morris asked about the variety of street trees that are planned. (Various) Mr. Morris will review the city's specifications. There may be a singular species that is already designated along Crawford Canyon Road. Plans for this tract are also missing some information on the planting legends, and irrigation CITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REV/EW BOARD Meeting Minutes for March 8, 1995 Page 4 specifications. All plans must have information posted about mandatory inspections for the contractor's benefit. MOTION by Beau Shigetomi to approve the proposal, finding that on a conceptual level, the type, sizes, and location of plant material is compatible with grading and development plans. In order to ensure adequate growth and long-term health of the vegetation within the development, approval is made subject to the following conditions: • The use of hydroseed will be reduced along the public rights of way, especially Crawford Canyon Road, and replaced with more permanent varieties of plant material (such as Ivy or Star Jasmine) from one-gallon pots or flatted plant material. TRACT 14983, "THE VILLAGE" MODEL COMPLEX • Sheet 1 -Construction Plan; Sheet 3 -Construction Details; and Sheet 4 -Overhead Details: Plans must be approved by Building Division • Sheet 2, Grading Plan: Landscape Grading Plan must match precise grading plan and be certified by a civil engineer. • Sheet 7 -Tree and Vine Planting Plan: Provide Tree Legend indicating name, size, and quantity. • Sheet 5 -Irrigation Plan; Sheet 6 -Irrigation Details; and Sheet 7 -Tree and Vine Planting Plan: Provide landscape notes on plans as required by the Community Services Department. RECREATION CENTER, TRACT 14983 • Sheet 1 -Construction Plan; Sheet 3 -Construction Details: Plans must be approved by Building Division. • Sheet 2, Grading Plan: Landscape Grading Plan must match precise Grading Plan and be certified by a civil engineer. • Sheet 4 -Irrigation Plan; Sheet 5 -Irrigation Details; and Sheet 6 -Tree and Vine Planting Plan: Provide landscape notes on plans as required by the Community Services Department. • Sheet 6 -Tree and Vine Planting Plan: Provide Tree Legend indicating name, size, and quantity. Vine Legend incomplete, provide size and quantity. PRODUCTION LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS • Sheets 1-8 -Fence and Wall Details: Plans must be approved by Building Division, Public Works, and Traffiic Division. CITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Meeting Minutes for March 8, 1995 Page 5 • Sheet 8 -Monument plans and Details: Title missing Construction and Grading Plan must be approved by Building Division. Plan also requires civil engineer's certification. Irrigation Plan: Placement of irrigation main line within public right-of--way must be approved by Public Works and indicated on Street Improvement Plans. • Sheets 9, 10, 16, 17, 21, 22 -Construction Details, Irrigation and Planting Plans: Sheets indicating irrigation and landscaping for existing City of Orange water reservoir need to be separated from Production Landscape Plans. Plans also must be approved by the Water Department. Provide flow sensor on City irrigation system. • Sheet 9 -Construction Details: Detail "B" should be Tree Planting and detail "A" should be City Street Tree Planting. • Sheets 13, 14, 15, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 -Planting Plans: Slope areas adjacent to open space are considered fuel modification zones and need to be placed on separate sheets, and approved by the Fire Department. • Sheets 10-32 -Irrigation and Planting Plans: Provide landscape notes on plans as required by the Community Services Department. • Sheets 21, 23, 25, 27, 29, 31: Symbols on Ground Cover Legend do not match symbol on plan. • Plans appear not to show landscaping or street trees in the public right-of--way. TRACT 14984, "THE COTTAGES" MODEL COMPLEX • Sheets 1-4 -Construction, grading plans and construction overhead details: Plans must be approved by Building Division. • Sheet 2 -Grading Plan: Landscape Grading Plan must match precise Grading Plan and be certified by a civil engineer. • Sheet 7 -Tree and Vine Planting Plan: Provide Tree Legend indicating name, size, and quantity. • Sheets 5-7 -Irrigation and Planting Plans: Provide landscape notes on plans as required by the Community Services Department. PRODUCTION LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS • Sheet 2 -Grading Plan: Grading Plan is missing and needs to be certified by a civil engineer. CITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Meeting Minutes for March 8, 1995 Page 6 • Sheets 3-12 -Construction, grading, fence and wall plans and details: Plans must be approved by Building Division, Public Works and Traffic Division. • Sheet 11 -Construction Details: Detail "B" should be Tree Planting and Detail "A" should be City Street Tree Planting. • Sheets 28, 29, 30, 31, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43 -Planting Plan: Fuel modification wet zones need to be identified on plan and approved by the Fire Department. • Sheet 14 -Base H, Irrigation and Planting Plans: Provide landscape notes on Landscape Plans as required by the Community Services Department. • Sheets 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21 - Imgation Plan: Placement of irrigation main line within the public right-of--way must be approved by public works and indicated on the Street Improvement Plans. • Landscaping, street trees in public right-of--way is not indicated on plan. Also, landscaping for medians (Sheet 13) at entry to Cliffway Drive is missing. • Irrigation calculations, Planting Legends and notes are incomplete on many sheets for tract developments. SECOND by Robert Hornacek. AYES: Robert Hornacek, Beau Shigetomi and Erika Wolfe NOES: None ABSENT: David Kent and Steven Prothero MOTION CARRIED Continued Reviews - CITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Meeting Minutes for Manch 8, 1995 Page 7 3) DRB 3029 - J. BAKER, INC. ("CASUAL MALE"); 1302 N. TUST/N ST. (N. OF KATELLA AVE.) Architectural modifications and new signs for retail tenant of an existing bank building; C-TR (Limited Business) District, Tustin St. Redevelopment Project Area. The plans were presented by John Rix, Architect. Mr. Hornacek: The proposal is much improved. Structural modifications are acceptable as presented, except that the signs are labeled as 4 feet high on elevations. (Sign code limits height to 24 inches) Mr. Rix: That's a typographical error. The sign height actually scales at 2 feet on the plans. Mr. Shigetomi: What's the dimension of the proposed building fascia? Mr. Rix: 4 feet, overall height; there is an extension of approximately 3 inches above the eaveline. Mr. Hornacek was willing to make a motion for approval. Mr. Rix asked if the board would consider an alternate plan. He is trying to accommodate a corporate design review board in New Jersey. He presented a proposal with capital letters proposed at the full height of 24 inches (not stacked copy, as initially proposed). The proposal takes advantage of the 60 percent maximum limit that the board normally allows for tenant sign width. Mr. Hornacek: Another issue to consider is whether the proposal satisfies the limits on display area, as established by code. Jim Donovan (staff): With a ratio of 1 square foot per lineal foot of building frontage, the sign code does not allow a 24-inch sign at 60 percent of the building's width. Mathematically, a 24-inch sign is limited to 50 percent (by the 1:1 ratio). However, a sign may be stretched to 60 percent if the sign's overall height were reduced to 20 inches. Mr. Hornacek: If the sign height were reduced, the proposed width is no problem. The alternate proposal is equally acceptable, so long as the display area is limited. Since a copy of this proposal was not provided prior to this meeting, Mr. Hornacek accepted a copy and labeled the plan Exhibit "B". MOTION by Robert Hornacek to approve either proposal subject to the appropriate limits on height and display area, finding that each is compatible with the existing design and scale of the building. SECOND by Erika Wolfe. AYES: Robert Hornacek, Beau Shigetomi and Erika. Wolfe NOES: None ABSENT: David Kent and Steven Prothero MOTION CARRIED CITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Meeting Minutes for March 8, 1995 Page 8 New Proposals - 4) DRB 3038 -FRANK & SHANNON TUCKER; 556 E. CULVER AVE. Laundry room addition to a residential garage; R-2 (Residential Duplex), Old Towne Districts. The homeowner was present to speak on behalf of this proposal. Photographs of existing development were submitted for review. Finish materials differ for the house and the garage. Jim Donovan (staff) reported that the garage is a relatively new structure. Construction was completed about 12 years ago. Siding is T-111 plywood, and does not match the board-and-bat siding on the historic residential building. Although the addition is proposed as an attachment to the garage, the applicant considers the addition as an enclosure to the back yard (recreation and entertainment) area, and therefore proposes to match the siding on house. Mr. Hornacek asked what type of windows were proposed. Mr. Donovan: The applicants have salvaged windows from a house that was recently demolished. They propose to use those windows in this addition. Mr. Hornacek stated that he considered the proposal to be adequate, except that perhaps the face of the addition (west elevation) should be pulled back from the face of the garage to accommodate for the change in finish materials. Ms. Wolfe asked the applicant whether such a requirement would be acceptable. Ms. Tucker: Yes. MOTION by Robert Hornacek, to approve the building addition as proposed, except as noted below, finding that proposal is designed and will be constructed in a manner that does not significantly change, obscure, damage, or destroy the architectural character or features of development on the property. To create a transition between different building materials for the addition and the existing structure, the western face of new construction shall be held back, 6 inches or so, from the existing plane of the same side of the building. SECOND by Erika Wolfe. AYES: Robert Hornacek, Beau Shigetomi and Erika Wolfe NOES: None ABSENT: David Kent and Steven Prothero MOTION CARRIED CITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Meeting Minutes for March 8, 1995 Page 9 5) DRB 3039 - VARCO INTERNATIONAL, INC. 743 N. ECKHOFF Office building addition to an industrial facility; M-2 (Industrial) District, Northwest Redevelopment Project Area. Mr. Shigetomi asked whether any of the board members had any concerns about this project. Ms. Wolfe and Mr. Hornacek replied that they did not. The architectural proposal is an acceptable one. Mr. Shigetomi felt that the preliminary landscaping plan was generally acceptable, and final plans could be reviewed and approved by staff. However, the scale of development (i.e., large parcel of property, massive industrial buildings) requires the use of larger plants so that trees and shrubs quickly attain a similar stature. MOTION by Beau Shigetomi to approve the proposal as submitted, finding that proposed development is compatible with the size, scale and context of surrounding development. The proposed variety of planted material and location of planters is also appropriate; however, the size of plant material shall be large enough to match the scale of development. All trees shall be planted from a 24-inch box, minimum size, and shrubs from a 5-gallon container. SECOND by Robert Hornacek. AYES: Robert Hornacek, Beau Shigetomi and Erika Wolfe NOES: None ABSENT: David Kent and Steven Prothero MOTION CARRIED CITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Meeting Minutes for March 8, 1995 Page 10 6) DRB 3040 -INTERSTATE CONSOLIDATED INDUSTRIES, 1802 - 1824 E. KATELLA AVE. Freestanding sign for an existing shopping center, C-TR (Limited Business) District, Tustin St. Redevelopment Project Area. Mr. Shigetomi asked whether any of the board members had any concerns about this sign proposal. Ms. Wolfe asked to review photographs to determine whether the proposed design was architecturally integrated with the building. She and Mr. Hornacek determined that it was. MOTION by Erika Wolfe to approve the proposal as submitted, finding that the sign would be compatible with the design, detail, colors and finish materials of the retail building which it identifies. In order to comply with Orange Municipal Code, an opaque background must be provided. SECOND by Beau Shigetomi. AYES: Robert Hornacek, Beau Shigetomi and Erika Wolfe NOES: None ABSENT: David Kent and Steven Prothero MOTION CARRIED Adjournment: 5:50 P.M.