Loading...
1995-04-19 Final DRC MinutesCity of Orange Design Review Board MINUTES for Wednesday, April 19, 1995 Board Members Present: Board Members Absent: Steven Prothero Beau Shigetomi Erika. Wolfe Robert Hornacek Staff Attendance: Chris Carnes, Associate Planner Jim Donovan, Associate Planner Howard Moms, Landscape Coordinator Dan Ryan, Senior Planner Administrative Session - 4:45 P.M. 1) Review minutes for April 5, 1995; preview applications listed on this agenda. The board received copies of a letter of resignation from David Kent, which was addressed to Mayor Coontz. The staff reported that the City Clerk will advertise a replacement for Mr. Kent, as soon as the Council accepts his resignation. Beau Shigetomi noted that his term as D.R.B. Chair is now expired. Mr. Shigetomi nominated Steve Prothero as the new chair. The nomination was seconded by Erika. Wolfe. Mr. Prothero accepted the nomination. Erika. Wolfe will serve asvice-chair. Mr. Prothero assumed the chair. Regular Session - S: 35 P.M. MOTION by Mr. Shigetomi to approve the minutes of Apri15, with a revision. Mr. Shigetomi did not vote "no" on the motion to revise previous minutes for D.R.B. 3027. He abstained. SECOND: Erika Wolfe AYES: Steven Prothero, Beau Shigetomi, & Erika Wolfe NOES: None ABSENT: Robert Hornacek MOTION CARRIED Continued Items - City of Orange Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for April l9, 1995 Page 2 2) DRB 3009 -TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 15053 VAN DAELE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (FRANK RADMACHER ASSOC.) WEST OF TUST/N STREET, NORTH OF SANTIAGO CREEK Landscape and irrigation plans for a residential detached condominium subdivision, including model sites; P-C, or Planned Community District ("Sycamore Crossing"). The applicant was represented by Steve King and Frank Radmacher. Tim Donovan (staff) reported that these plans were submitted as a matter of routine. The developer is required to submit a detailed landscape and imgation plan, pursuant to Orange Municipal Code Chapter 17.96. However, the City Council discussed this project at a meeting last April 11, as a courtesy to owners of property adjacent to the north side of project site. Neighbors expressed concern about the developer's removal of mature Eucalyptus trees along the north edge of the property. Council would like the board to respond to two questions: (1) Can the trees be saved? (2) If not, are the proposed Tristania conferta an appropriate replacement? (Will new trees sufficiently screen adjacent residential development, and provide privacy?) The staff also reported that grading plans require that this northern portion of the site be filled to provide adequate drainage away from the property line, toward future streets. Copies of the grading plans have been submitted for the board's review. Mr. Shigetomi: It is very difficult to preserve existing trees when mass grading activity is planned. These are also very messy trees. They create extensive leaf and bark litter, and the size and number of trees make them incompatible with asmall-lot subdivision. Mr. King: The applicants had a meeting with staff prior to this meeting. Anew component of the plan is that an irrigation line will be provided for the new Tristania wind row. Mr. Shigetomi: The new trees are a good replacement for the Eucalyptus. He is more concerned with the size of the entry sign. It should be much smaller. Mr. King: That's O.K.... It was only a conceptual illustration. It is uncertain that an entry sign will be installed, because the long-term maintenance responsibilities would have to be passed along to the homeowners association. Amore specific sign proposal will be submitted later, if a proposal is made. Mr. Donovan reported that O.M.C. Section 17.78.1201imits the height and display area of such a sign. Howard Moms (staff): The proposal requires review by many departments before permits are issued. Mr. Shigetomi: Trees near the entry must be upgraded; Tristania should be planted from a 48-inch box. Mr. Prothero expressed a concern about the location and treatment of the perimeter wall at the NE corner. (Continued on the following page) City of Orange Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for April 19, 1995 Page 3 (Continued from the previous page) Mr. King: The intent is to match the "precision block" wall at that location. There is a slope down from the shoulder of the road to the project site. Plans for the wall are also consistent with the creek improvement scheme. Chris Carnes (staff): A setback would make the block wall ineffective. It's intended for sound attenuation purposes, and any setback that is required would reduce the elevation of the wall as it is moved away from the public right of way. Mr. Morris: The slope will have to be landscaped if it's greater than 2: 1. The planting and irrigation plans must have inspection notes added. It is recommended that the imgation plan include bubblers on p.v.c. lines for the Tristania wind row, rather than a drip irrigation system. Mr. King: Long-term maintenance will be provided by homeowner, and enforceable through a deed restriction. Mr. Prothero asked board members if there were any other questions. (No.) MOTION by Mr. Shigetomi to approve the proposal fmding that the landscaping plan is acceptable, with some revision. Existing Eucalyptus trees are not compatible with the approved development plan, and Tristania trees are an appropriate replacement for their loss. Plans will include an automatic irrigation system for the new Tristania wind row along the northern tract boundary. Tristania specimens at the front entry way shall be upgraded to a 48-inch box. Any entry sign that proposed shall comply with requirements of Orange Municipal Code, and be reviewed at a later date. SECOND by Erika Wolfe. AYES: Steven Prothero, Beau Shigetomi, & Erika Wolfe NOES: None ABSENT: Robert Hornacek MOTION CARRIED (Continued on the following page) City of Orange Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for April 19, 1995 Page 4 (Continued from the previous page) Staff recommendations and requirements: • Plans shall include a landscape precision grading plan certified by a Civil Engineer. • Landscape plans will require plan check and approval by the Building, Fire Traffic, Public Works and Community Services Departments. TITLE SHEET Provide plant quantities on plant legend. SHEETS L-13 through L-15, IRRIGATION PLAN Provide landscape notes required by the Department of Community Services. SHEETS L-19 THROUGH L-23, PLANTING PLAN Provide landscape notes required by the Department of Community Services. SHEET L-23 PLANTING PLAN Upsize Buxus M. Japonica, Myrtus Communis "compacts" Larissa M. "Boxwood Beauty" from one (1) gallon to five (5) gallon. Landscape planting plans do not comply with DRB Guidelines requiring that 25% of the trees shall be 24" box or larger: Total Trees = 368 25 % 24" box or larger = 92 Plans indicate = 28 Upsize trees = 64 • Provide landscape notes as required by Community Services Department on the plans. Irrigation plans: NOTIFY COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT, (714) 744-5596, FOR IRRIGATION MAIN LINE PRESSURE TEST AND COVERAGE TEST, 48 HOURS NOTICE REQUIRED. Planting plans: NOTIFY COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT, (714) 744-5596, FOR LANDSCAPE INSPECTION PRIOR TO EXCAVATION OF PLANTING PITS FOR PLANT MATERIAL, CITY REQUIRED STREET TREES, AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. 48 HOURS NOTICE REQUIRED. City of Orange Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for Apri119, 1995 Page S 3) DRB 3014 -SADDLEBACK CAR WASH (GRUEBEL CO.) 510 W. CHAPMAN AVENUE Landscape and irrigation plans for aself-serve, coin-operated car wash (approved through C.U.P. 2090-94); Old Towne District and Santa Fe Depot Area Specific Plan, Southwest Redevelopment Project Area. The applicant sent no representative to this meeting. Mr. Shigetomi expressed a concern that no trees have been proposed with landscape plans. Jim Donovan (staff) indicated that some of the planted areas have been reduced since the proposal was reviewed by the Planning Commission. Additionally, the staff and the project architect have discussed the possibility of adding a planter at the west end of the building. Discussion was delayed until the end of the meeting, but no representative arrived prior to adjournment. No motion was made and no action taken. Staff recommendations and requirements: Add/change plant material, if required by the DRB. Sheet L-1, Landscape Plan Indicate plant quantities and size on plan. Indicate trees on plan. Provide shrub screen at front of project adjacent to sidewalk, per DRB Guidelines. A precision landscape grading plan shall be provided, and certified by a Civil Engineer. SHEET L-2, LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION PLAN Provide the following note: NOTIFY COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT, (714) 744-5596, FOR IRRIGATION MAIN LINE PRESSURE TEST AND COVERAGE TEST, 48 HOURS NOTICE REQUIRED. • Irrigation legend is incomplete. Provide manufacture, size, model number, etc. City of Orange Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for April 19, 1995 Page 6 New Proposals - 4) DRB 3049 -ORANGE COUNTY FARM SUPPLY 1826 W. CHAPMAN AVENUE Freestanding sign; C-2 (General Business) District; Southwest R.P.A. The applicants were represented by David Litchie, Carey Sign Graphics. Some code deficiencies have been identified by staff, and reported to the applicant when the plans were initially submitted. The sign is one foot taller than height regulations allow. There is also a translucent white background proposed fora "reader board." The address must also be internally illuminated. Mr. Litchie discussed the regulations with the board. The business owner wondered how reader boards have been installed at other locations (such as Adray's, which is across the street). Ms. Wolfe explained that the ordinance is revised from time to time, but many signs were permitted or constructed before the code was revised in 1989. Mr. Litchie felt that the sign could be revised to meet code requirements. Eliminating the reader board will reduce the height by one foot, and the address can be routed-out of the sign pedestal. MOTION by Erika Wolfe to approve the proposal subject to revised plans, to be reviewed and approved by staff. The applicant will eliminate the reader board, reduce the overall height of the sign by one foot, and provide an illuminated address. SECOND: Beau Shigetomi AYES: Steven Prothero, Beau Shigetomi, & Erika Wolfe NOES: None ABSENT: Robert Hornacek MOTION CARRIED City of Orange Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for April 19, 1995 Page 7 5) DRB 3051 -NELSON TRUST 821-843 TUST/N STREET Sign program and a new freestanding sign for retail center in C-1 (Limited Business) District, Tustin Street R.P.A. The applicant was represented by Steve Nelson and David Terralk. Erika Wolfe expressed concern about the number of fonts that are displayed within the sign program. (Page 3) She felt that there should be only one font designed for the reader board on freestanding sign. Otherwise, wording on the display board would be rather jumbled, or cluttered. Various options for tenant wall signs are O.K. Mr. Nelson was reluctant to require that individual tenant identification be limited in such a manner. It is more important that tenants be able to match the script of each wall sign. As he pointed out, the new sign would be a vast improvement over the existing sign, which is very large, with many different colors, as well as letter styles. Ms. Wolfe reiterated her position. A uniform font will provide a cleaner look, and better clarity for the tenant's identification purposes. Mr. Shigetomi agreed. Mr. Prothero asked the applicant to clarify which portions of the sign would be opaque, and what would be translucent? Mr. Terralk said that reader board backgrounds would be opaque, while the text would be illuminated. Additionally, the center LD. ("Lomita Square") would have elements of exposed neon, with a neon border. Mr. Shigetomi was not opposed to neon tubing, but he does not approve of an illuminated neon border. Neon should be used sparingly, to be effective. Mr. Terralk notes extensive use of neon trim on signs within the city, such as the sign at Islands restaurant. What he is proposing is more subtle. It is not exposed, but concealed behind a lip around the edge of the cabinet. Mr. Nelson mentioned that he partly owns another commercial center across the street. He wants this center to look different, and felt quite strongly that the neon trim will enhance the sign and make it more distinctive. Mr. Prothero asked (staff) whether there are any code limitations that affect the use of neon lighting in a sign. Jim Donovan replied that there are none. There was an initial attempt to devise a formula in the sign code's revision of 1989, but it was edited out by committee before adoption by Council. (Continued on the following page) City of Orange Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for April l9, 1995 Page 8 (Continued from the previous page) Ms. Wolfe: The sign is of a good design. She believes that there are times when the amount of neon should be controlled, but this proposal is exceptional. She asked the other board members whether they had a concern about color options for signs on buildings? Misters Prothero and Shigetomi agreed that the wall signs looked O.K. Signs will be limited to a width of 60 percent; the criteria is quite clear. Mr. Prothero asked the applicants to elaborate upon the wall sign detail, an orange within a diamond. Further discussion was limited as such. MOTION by Erika Wolfe to approve the proposal as submitted, with a requirement that all tenant panels in the freestanding sign be of the same type style (as illustrated on page 4). Wall signs may utilize the various fonts shown on page 3. Ms. Wolfe directed staff to make the record clear that approval of extensive use of neon within the freestanding sign is based upon the merits of design. SECOND: Steven Prothero AYES: Steven Prothero & Erika Wolfe NOES: Beau Shigetomi ABSENT: Robert Hornacek MOTION CARRIED City of Orange Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for April 19, 1995 Page 9 6) DRB 3052 - JIFFY LUBE (DICK HYNAN) 433 W. KATELLA AVENUE Wall signs for an approved automotive service facility in the M-2 (Industrial) District. This proposal will require the Zoning Administrator's approval of a variance application to exceed the City's height standard. Dick Hynan was present, with Bill Henigsman of TNT Signs. Mr. Hynan explained that these signs are fabrications based upon a national trademark, which includes a "flying'J'." If the signs were reduced so that no part exceeds 24 inches, the lower case letters would be very difficult to read. Ms. Wolfe: The wall signs are quite large, especially the height of the "flying 'J'," which measures six feet. It should be reduced. (Question to staff:) What is the board's authority in reviewing this proposal? It can't be approved in this manner because it exceeds the city's height limit. Jim Donovan explained the procedure. The Zoning Administrator will determine whether there are adequate findings to approve a variance. However, if the variance application is not approved, these signs cannot be permitted. The proposal requires approval by the Zoning Administrator and D.R.B. Mr. Shigetomi agreed that the "flying 'J"' is too big; he would rather see the "J" logo integrated within wall signs, rather than displayed as a separate sign. Mr. Hynan replied that the older trademark for "Jiffy Lube" was actually arranged in that manner. He would rather not have to fabricate anything special for this location. Even though the vertical dimensions are elongated, the total display area is well within the code allocation for a building of this size. Mr. Prothero was concerned about the directional signs. They are tall, as well. These signs should be reduced to 3 feet, maximum height. Opaque backgrounds must be provided for the directional signs, and that portion of the cabinet that reads, "America's Favorite Oil Change." MOTION by Mr. Shigetomi to approve the proposal, if an opaque background is provided for Lexan faces in cabinet signs (including directional signs). Directional signs shall be limited to a maximum height of 36 inches. Approval is further subject to approval of the applicant's variance application. SECOND: Ms. Wolfe AYES: Steven Prothero, Beau Shigetomi, & Erika. Wolfe NOES: None ABSENT: Robert Hornacek MOTION CARRIED City of Orange Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for April 19, 1995 Page 10 7) DRB 3054 - McDONALD'S CORP. CHAPMAN AVENUE AND JAMBOREE ROAD Building elevations, signs, landscape and imgation plans for adrive-through restaurant in a shopping center; PC (Planned Community) District. (Ref: C.U.P. 1973-92) Jim Donovan (staff) mentioned that development at this location was approved as restaurant on a pad within this commercial shopping center. The proposal is comprehensive. If the board approves the design plans that were submitted, the applicant may apply for a building permit with no further review. The applicant was represented by Connie Giffen. Mr. Shigetomi announced that he would abstain from review of this item, due a potential conflict of interest. Mr. Prothero noted that the design is somewhat unusual for a McDonald's restaurant. Has the prototype been abandoned or is this proposal unique because of the theme of the shopping center? Ms. Gillen: The corporation has been moving away from the traditional brick building with the light bars on the roof. The older building design has not always been accepted by cities and communities that have thematic guidelines or specific design standards. Mr. Prothero asked the staff whether there was any established policy or guidelines that might affect the "playland." Jim Donovan: Yes. The ordinance that defines the board's responsibilities states that "all projects" require design review and approval, unless specifically exempted by the City Council. Around 1991, a playground was proposed at another McDonald's on east Chapman Avenue. The board did not consider the architectural merits of the structure to be so important an issue as the advertising benefit. The application was referred to City Council for a determination as to whether the proposal should be considered a "project," or exempt. The board further recommended that the application be denied if design review is necessary. The Council moved to approve construction of the playland, and all subsequent applications have not required review by the board. Ms. Wolfe: Wall signs need to be reduced to fit the building, especially that proposed on the north elevation, on a diagonal wall. The board and Ms. Giffen discussed the possibility that the drawing may be a poor rendering. It would be better to get a separate elevation of this wall, and accurate sign specifications. Mr. Prothero and Ms. Wolfe agreed that the landscaping and building elevations were adequate, as submitted. (Continued on the following page) City of Orange Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for April 19, 1995 Page 11 (Continued from the previous page) MOTION by Erika Wolfe to approve the building elevations and landscaping plans as submitted. Sign plans must be revised and submitted for review at a later date. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAINED: MOTION CARRIED Steven Prothero Steven Prothero & Erika Wolfe None Robert Hornacek Beau Shigetomi Staff recommendations and requirements: • If a grading permit is issued for site construction, a precision grading landscape plan certified by a Civil Engineer will be required. City of Orange Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for April 19, 1995 Page 12 8) DRB 3055 - DANNY F. SHIELDS 433 E. LA VETA AVENUE Building plans for the reconstruction of a residential garage, with a second story addition; Old Towne and R-2, (Residential Duplex) Districts. The applicant was not present, and sent no representative to this meeting. Jim Donovan (staff explained that a similar project was proposed by the applicant six or eight months ago. The project was denied, primarily because the applicant (or his architect) was unwilling to reduce the size of the second story addition. He is now willing to reduce the mass of the second story, but is making this presentation without an architect. Ms. Wolfe did not feel that the plans conveyed enough information for the board to take an action, or even make a recommendation at this time. Mr. Shigetomi agreed, stating that the homeowner should seek the assistance of an architect or designer. The plans are not rendered in a manner as to ensure accuracy in construction. There was no motion was made and no action taken. Adjournment: 7:00 P.M.