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.