Loading...
1995-03-22 Final DRC MinutesCity of Orange Design Review Board M I N U T E S for Wednesday, March 22, 1995 Board Members Present: Board Members Absent: David Kent Steven Prothero Robert Hornacek, Chair Erika Wolfe Beau Shigetomi Staff Attendance: Chris Carnes, Associate Planner Jim Donovan, Associate Planner Howard Morris, Landscape Coordinator Dan Ryan, Senior Planner Administrative Session - 1) Review minutes for March 8, 1995; preview applications listed on this agenda. Regular Session - MOTION by Erika Wolfe to approve the minutes as recorded. SECOND by Robert Hornacek AYES: Steven Prothero, Robert Hornacek and Erika Wolfe NOES: None ABSENT: Beau Shigetomi ABSTAIN: David Kent MOTION CARRIED CITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Meeting Minutes for March 22, 1995 Page 2 Final Reviews - 2) DRB 2682 -HUNT ENTERPRISES, FORMER S. P. R. R. RIGHT OF WAY, NORTH SIDE OF CHAPMAN NEAR MCPHERSON, ALONG Architecture and landscaping for a self storage project in R-3 (Multi- Family Residential) and C-1 (Limited Business) Districts. The applicant was represented by Todd Voelker. Mr. Hornacek: Doesn't this project get any kind of planning commission review? Jim Donovan (staff): The city council approved the project in 1991. More recently, modifications to the project have been reviewed through the same process of review, with proper public notification. The Design Review Board recommended against approval of this project when the plans were originally submitted. Chris Carnes (staff) was also present to discuss this item. The project is substantially different because a new parcel map was submitted by the applicant. "Lot line adjustments" affected the boundaries of the site plan so that the entire project had to be modified to fit. One of the buildings has increased to two stories in order to compensate for land that was traded to the adjacent property owner. However, the applicants now have better access to McPherson Street. Mr. Hornacek asked to review photographs that were submitted with the application, then asked Mr. Voelker whether he knew how high the adjacent building is, in reference to height? Mr. Voelker was not certain, but believed that the height of new construction would be relatively equal, since the old railroad depot is built upon a raised platform. Mr. Prothero: What are impacts of the subdivision of property upon the adjacent development (old railroad depot)? Is there adequate parking area? Mr. Carnes: Yes. The staff and commission looked to those issues at the time that the map was reviewed, and the commission (and council) has approved a site plan. Mr. Hornacek: What about the space between the depot platform and the common property line? It is a no-man's-land that needs attention. Did anyone look into resolving that? Mr. Carnes: No. Conditions of approval on the self-storage project cannot include off=site improvements. If the city cannot ensure that such improvements are completed by the applicant (and related to issuance of a building permit), the city may be required to complete any CITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Meeting Minutes for March 22, 1995 Page 3 improvements that are required. However, it may be possible to attach such a condition to the subdivision of the property, rather than the conditional use permit. Mr. Voelker: What is the point of this review? He was under the impression that the board was looking to ensure that the new proposal conformed with approved plans? Mr. Carnes: The staff has already reviewed the proposal to make sure that plans are consistent with the conditional use permit, but the design review process (and City Council resolution) requires final review of construction documents by D.R.B. Furthermore, the board has not seen this specific proposal, since plans were revised from the preliminary stages of review. Mr. Donovan: Not only that, but a detailed landscaping proposal was never submitted with the original scheme. While the commission may have approved the site plan and approved of the building elevations, due diligence requires that the board approve a final landscape plan. Misters Prothero and Hornacek discussed landscaping opportunities beside the depot. Mr. Hornacek was concerned about this highly visible portion of the site plan, and said that the new property owners will have an investment to protect. Enhancements should be made to ensure quality of the project, and to provide extra protection against graffiti. The project also needs vine pockets in parking area, along solid walls. Howard Moms (staff), reported that the Community Services Department has reviewed the plans and suggests that every other tree in the required front yard be changed to something with a canopy, rather than palm trees, so as to complement the mass of the adjacent two-story structure. Specimens should also be upgraded to a 24-inch box, instead of 15-gallon. He provided the applicant with a written copy of his comments. MOTION by Steve Prothero, to approve the project in a final form, finding that the project is consistent with prior approvals granted by the City Council. Landscaping plans will include upgrades according to staff recommendations, including the use of turf within turf block (rather than ground cover) per Fire Department regulations. Tree wells shall also be added within the parking area, per revision marks on plans on file with the Community Development Department. Landscaping plans must also be detailed to include the area alongside the platform of the old railroad depot, as a condition of approval prior to final recordation of the parcel map. CITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Meeting Minutes for March 22, 1995 Page 4 SECOND by Erika Wolfe. AYES: David Kent, Steven Prothero, Robert Hornacek and Erika Wolfe NOES: None ABSENT: Beau Shigetomi MOTION CARRIED STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS & REQUIREMENTS Final landscape and irrigation plans must include changes required by D.R.B. Sheet L-1, Irrigation Site Plan: • Change telephone number for City of Orange note to (714) 744-5596. • Modify irrigation system for turf block, as discussed below. Sheet L-2, Planting Site Plan: • Change telephone number for City of Orange note to (714) 744-5596. • Planting of ground cover in turf block at fire access entry from Chapman Avenue is not acceptable to the Fire Department. This area must be planted with grass seed. This correction will also require a redesign of the irrigation system. Sheet L-3, Construction Details: • Geoblock Landscape System Design will require approval from Public Works and the Fire Department. • Submit precision landscape grading plan certified by a civil engineer with landscape plans. • Landscaping plans will require plan check review and approval by the Building Division, Fire, Public Works and Community Services Departments. CITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Meeting Minutes for March 22, 1995 Page S 3) DRB 2987 - ST. JOSEPH HOSPITAL, 1100 W. STEWART DRIVE Landscaping and irrigation plans related to emergency room addition for hospital; P-I (Public Institution) District. The applicants had no project representative at this meeting. Mr. Hornacek recalled that when this project was reviewed last summer, the board recommended that a landscaped area be added in between the ambulance entrance and the Pepper Street property line. Otherwise, there will be short retaining wall visible, with no landscape relief at this location. Chris Carnes (Staff) reported that there was a such condition included within the staff report, but the applicant asked to be relieved of this requirement. Howard Moms (Staff) made the following recommendations: Sheet L-2, Irrigation Plan • Provide the following note on the plan: NOTIFY COT~IlVIUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT, (714) 744-5596, FOR IRRIGATION MAIN LINE PRESSURE TEST AND COVERAGE TEST, 48 HOURS NOTICE REQUIltED. Provide sleeving symbol for three-quarter-inch lateral line at parking lot entrance from Pepper Street. Sheet L-3, Tree and Ground Cover Plan • Since landscaping is merely temporary and will be demolished to make way for La Veta Avenue street widening, the applicant should submit a revised landscape plan after the street widening project occurs. Most of the development along La Veta Avenue has turf within required yards along the public right of way. The proposed use of ground cover is non consistent with the general theme of the streetscape. Furthermore, staffs experience with large areas of groundcover is that they are easily neglected, and plants are subject to die-off. The result is that many bare spots occur within required yards. Staff therefore recommends the amount of ground cover be reduced along La Veta, and replaced by turf. Sheet L-5, Construction Details • Provide a turf block detail on plan for review and approval by Fire Department and Public Works Department. Submit a precision landscape grading plan certified by a civil engineer. CITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Meeting Minutes for March 22, 1995 Page 6 • Landscaping plans will require plan check review and approval by the Building Division, Fire, Public Works and Community Services Departments. MOTION by Mr. Hornacek, to continue the review of this item until such time as a representative is available to discuss these concerns. SECOND by Ms. Wolfe. AYES: David Kent, Steven Prothero, Robert Hornacek and Erika Wolfe NOES: None ABSENT: Beau Shigetomi MOTION CARRIED CITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Meeting Minutes for March 22, 1995 Page 7 Continued Items - 4) DRB 3027 -BOB SMITH & CHUCK EBERT, 122 S. GLASSELL ST. Modification to the first floor facade of a building in the Plaza Historic District, to include new belt cornice, window sills, awnings with signage; C-1, Old Towne Districts, Southwest Redevelopment Project Area. Applicants were represented by Robert Smith, Chuck Ebert & Rick Anderson. Mr. Anderson reported that new plans were submitted since board members received their packets. These plans include more substantive section drawings and construction details. Mr. Prothero asked some questions to clarify section drawings and the relationship between the building's pillars, transoms and masonry face. Mr. Smith provided samples of glass that might be used in construction, and photographs of similar revisions made to buildings in Old Town Pasadena. Mr. Hornacek expressed concern about the type of glass that is proposed. It appears to have too reflective a surface. Ms. Wolfe preferred a previous glass sample that was presented during a previous review; opaque white, with marbling throughout. Mr. Prothero suggested that the applicants consider a product made by Torrance Aluminum (or Torrance Steel), an extruded mullion made to look like steel in profile Mr. Hornacek volunteered to make samples of other products available. His company has a materials sample room with a variety of glass samples. Misters Anderson and Hornacek had a discussion about spandrel glass, versus tempered glass. Mr. Prothero asked whether the applicants had any strong opinions about what they are trying to achieve in profile (of the transoms). There are many options available for glass and fake mullions. A grid could also be installed behind the glass. Mr. Hornacek agreed. Transoms could be "back-paned," or pebble glass, ribbed glass, or glue chip products might be used instead. Daniel Ryan (Star: Glass panels might also be acid washed... it would be best to avoid creation of a "tooth" that might collect dust, or otherwise get dirty. CITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Meeting Minutes for March 22, 1995 Page 8 Mr. Ebert was concerned about costs; there are many awnings around Old Towne. He feels that this project is being unfairly scrutinized according to a different aesthetic standard. Mr. Prothero felt that the only other issue to be resolved is the doorway alignment. He appreciates some of the work that is proposed in plans, but would prefer to see the doors moved back within recessed bays. There's a liability concern: doors swing open across the sidewalk. Ms. Wolfe is also "not wild" about the fringe that is proposed along the awnings. Mr. Smith said that this material matches what is used over the upper level apartment windows. (Pause) So where do we go from here? Mr. Ebert: We're about three months into this (review process), and construction has been stalled. He would like a decision made so the project may be completed. Mr. Hornacek asked other board members whether discussion is leading toward a conditioned approval? Mr. Prothero: I think so, but we need to see the glass, and the door openings should be appropriately recessed. MOTION by Steven Prothero, to approve the revised plans if the door is set back (3 to 6 feet) from the front property line, to approve the window "break up" as shown, with beveled aluminum powder-coated frames rather than anodized aluminum. His motion would also retain final approval until a glass sample is submitted. The board finds that revised elevations are compatible with Old Towne Design Standards and Secretary of the Interior Guidelines, that building materials and finishes are appropriate for the character of the existing structure and surrounding development in the Plaza Historic District. The work that is proposed will not adversely affect the character of historic, architectural nor aesthetic interests, nor the value of cultural resources on the site, or in the vicinity. SECOND by Robert Hornacek. AYES: David Kent, Steven Prothero, Robert Hornacek and Erika Wolfe NOES: None ABSENT: Beau Shigetomi MOTION CARRIED CITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Meeting Minutes for March 22, 1995 Page 9 New Proposals - 5) DRB 3041 -CORNING DEVELOPMENT, 940 N. TUSTIN AVE. Revision to freestanding sign proposed with Variance 1991-95; C-TR (Limited Business) District, Tustin Street R.P.A. Applicants were represented by Jim McGlothlin, Architect, and Jose Mueller from Federal Sign Company. Mr. McGlothlin explained that the proposal is complicated because the property owner has allowed an individual business to have the largest display panel within the sign. His client is the Luckys supermarket, and they need to get an advertising panel approved within a sign on Tustin Street. The Luckys building is actually visible only from Collins Avenue, well inside the property from Tustin Street. Tustin Street is the more important street upon which to establish a presence. Mr. Hornacek reviewed the sign code's provisions as design criteria. He sees two fundamental issues related to the proposal: only one sign is allowed on the property, and its height is limited to 15 feet. Both are issues that are not easily divorced from aesthetics standards. Existing signs on the premises are legal non-conforming structures. Is there any room for compromise? Can we ultimately have two signs that are less than 15 feet high, or one sign only slightly over the limit of 15 feet, if there are grounds for approval of a variance? Mr. McGlothlin wasn't sure whether his client would benefit in such a compromise. He was a little confused about the focus of the board's review. His understanding is that the height or the number of signs are issues that will be determined by the Zoning Administrator. Mr. Hornacek: That's correct, but these issues also have an aesthetic component. He simply doesn't like to see any new signs to be so high as what is proposed. From the design perspective, the proposed finish materials are appropriate, and uniformity to the colors of the text and the background of sign panels is a welcome improvement. But the city's standards will never be achieved if applicants are allowed to retain these larger signs. To clarify discussion of procedural requirements, Jim Donovan (Staff) explained that Orange Municipal Code requires that all signs meet development standards, and are subject to review and approval by D.R.B. Even if the Zoning Administrator allows a concession on development standards, the applicant still needs to obtain the approval by Design Review Board. Mr. Hornacek offered some suggestions to revise the proposal, and retain the same display area. Sketches were made to determine whether the height could be reduced, but the sign is located in the center of a driveway, and there are line-of--sight requirements with which to contend. Mr. CITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Meeting Minutes for March 22, 1995 Page 10 Hornacek concluded that he would rather see advertising space added to a second sign, at another location on the property. Other board members agreed with this conclusion. MOTION by Robert Hornacek, to deny the proposal to revise to the non-conforming sign on the grounds that it is not consistent with aesthetic standards, and to recommend that the applicant pursue approval of two signs on the premises. New signs should be no greater than 15 feet in height. SECOND by Erika Wolfe. AYES: David Kent, Steven Prothero, Robert Hornacek and Erika Wolfe NOES: None ABSENT: Beau Shigetomi MOTION CARRIED CITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Meeting Minutes for March 22, 1995 Page 11 6) DRB 3042 -STEVE AND KRISTI CALLES, 375 S. ORANGE ST. Room addition to a single family residence; R-1, Old Towne Districts. Applicants were represented by Mr. and Mrs. Canes. Dan Ryan (Stafi7 presented photographs of the existing building, and went through the applicant's presentation. Mr. Hornacek, acting as the chair, asked other members whether they had any concerns about the proposal. Ms. Wolfe noted that the existing building is not typical of any particular style of construction, but the addition is proposed as an appropriate match of architectural style and finish materials. Mr. Prothero volunteered to make a motion. MOTION by Steven Prothero to approve the proposal as submitted. SECOND by David Kent. AYES: David Kent, Steven Prothero, Robert Hornacek and Erika Wolfe NOES: None ABSENT: Beau Shigetomi MOTION CARRIED CITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Meeting Minutes for March 22, 1995 Page 12 7) DRB 3043 -CARL KARCHER ENTERPRISES, 3510 E. CHAPMAN AVENUE Replace channel letters on roof with cabinet signs and modify freestanding sign; C-1 (Limited Business) District. Applicants were represented by Chris White. Tim Donovan (Staff) explained that the proposal was made as a result of code enforcement action. A building inspector saw work in progress and informed the contractors that a building permit was required. The building had existing non-conforming roof signs on two sides, and the applicant was replacing the channel letters with an internally illuminated cabinet sign. There is something of a predicament in that both the previously permitted sign and this new proposal do not conform to standards. Since the work is already done, the staff felt it was better to get the applicant in to discuss the matter with the board, rather than require the applicant to modify plans to conform to code. Mr. Prothero asked about the freestanding sign. Is this an addition that is proposed, and if so, does it not exceed the maximum amount of display area that is allowed by code? Mr. Donovan: Actually, the cabinet was already existing. The applicant merely proposes to change to the plastic display panel. (Mr. White agreed) However, the white background does not conform to a requirement that plastic panels must have an opaque background. Mr. Hornacek recalled a similarly proposed roof sign that was recently before the board, over the course of several meetings. He explained to Mr. White what the code issues are, and made two sketches to explain how the applicant may integrate this proposal with some architectural remedy. The first was to have the sign recessed within an extension of the existing parapet. The second suggestion was to insert the sign within a dormer. Mr. White agreed that either suggestion might be possible. Board members inquired about the new products available and the marketing focus of the Carl's, Jr., as have been chronicled in the press. Mr. White confirmed that this sign is related to the test marketing for those products. This is one of only two stores where the new foods will be made available. In fact, these signs may be only be used for a period of six or eight weeks. If the experiment proves unsuccessful, these signs would be removed and the old signs might be put back in place. Under these circumstances, Mr. Hornacek felt that architectural upgrades or other changes shouldn't be required at this time. If the signs are only temporary, they are preferable to A-frame CITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Meeting Minutes for March 22, 1995 Page 13 signs and banners that might otherwise be used to promote the products. He asked other board members whether action might be delayed until a later date. MOTION by Robert Hornacek to continue the review of this item for a period of four months or so, in order to allow the applicant some time for consideration of long-range marketing goals and an appropriate architectural solution to resolve this matter. SECOND by David Kent. AYES: David Kent, Steven Prothero, Robert Hornacek and Erika Wolfe NOES: None ABSENT: Beau Shigetomi MOTION CARRIED CITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Meeting Minutes for March 22, 1995 Page 14 8) DRB 3044 -HAMILTON MATERIALS, INC., 345 W. MEATS AVE. 40,000 sq. ft. warehouse and distribution center proposed as expansion of an industrial facility; M-2 (Industrial) District, Northwest R.P.A. Applicants were represented by Gary Rierson, Architect. Mr. Prothero had questions for staff about the landscaping requirements. There didn't appear to be enough in the parking area. Jim Donovan (Staff replied that the parking rate for large warehouses is lower than any other use that is specified within the parking ordinance. There is only one space required per ten thousand square feet of building area. Consequently, the required parking area for this building is not very big, and only ten percent of that area should be landscaped. Most of the paved area that is proposed with this project would be used for outdoor storage, and warehouse access for heavy vehicles. Mr. Hornacek noted that the project site is located pretty far back from any public right of way. In addition to the planting improvements required for the new parking area, the applicant is also increasing the area for landscape improvements along the Meats Avenue frontage. Mr. Prothero felt that the applicant could add more trees near the rear property line, to be visible from the far end of the long driveway. Howard Morris (Staff) reported that he did not get a copy of these plans in his packet. Consequently, he is unable to verify whether landscaping plans have been prepared according to the guidelines. MOTION by Robert Hornacek to approve the proposal as submitted, subject to final review of landscape and irrigation plans by staff. Four trees will be added in a new planter near the rear property line, at the inside end of the driveway. SECOND by Erika Wolfe. AYES: David Kent, Steven Prothero, Robert Hornacek and Erika Wolfe NOES: None ABSENT: Beau Shigetomi MOTION CARRIED CITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Meeting Minutes for March 22, 1995 Page 1 S 9) DRB 3045 -KAISER PERMANENTE, 4201 W. CHAPMAN AVE. (NEAR N.W.C. AT LEWIS ST.) Wall signs proposed for 3-story building through Variance 1992-95; C-1 District. Applicants were represented by Kevin Becker, of Kaiser Permanente. Mr. Hornacek, as chair, asked other board members whether they had any concerns about this proposal. None were expressed. Ms. Wolfe volunteered to make a motion. MOTION by Erika Wolfe to approve the proposal as submitted, subject to the Zoning Administrator's approval of the applicant's variance request. SECOND by Steven Prothero. AYES: David Kent, Steven Prothero, Robert Hornacek and Erika Wolfe NOES: None ABSENT: Beau Shigetomi MOTION CARRIED Adjournment: 7:00 P.M.