Loading...
1995-05-03 Final DRC MinutesCity of Orange Design Review Board MINUTES for Wednesday, May 3, 1995 Board Members Present: Board Members Absent: Steven C. Prothero, Chair Beau Shigetomi Erika Wolfe Robert Hornacek Staff attendants: Chuck Lau, Associate Planner Jim Donovan, Associate Planner Howard Moms, Landscape Coordinator Dan Ryan, Senior Planner Historic Preservation Administrative Session - 4: 00 P.M. I) Review minutes for April 19, 1995; preview applications listed on this agenda. Mr. Prothero asked Mr. Shigetomi whether he actually voted "no" on the neon sign for Lomita Square (DRB 3051, item no. 5). Mr. Shigetomi recalled that he had indeed. MOTION by Mr. Shigetomi to approve the minutes with revision to item no. 5: D.R.B. No. 3051, Lomita Square. His vote should be recorded as "no." SECOND: Erika Wolfe AYES: Steven C. Prothero, Beau Shigetomi & Erika Wolfe NOES: None ABSENT: Robert Hornacek MOTION CARRIED Regular Session - S: 00 P.M. City of Orange • Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for May 3, 1995 Page 2 Continued Items - 2) DRB 3014 -SADDLEBACK CAR WASH (GRUEBEL CO.) 510 W. CHAPMAN AVE. (NO REVISED PLAN SUBMITTED) 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 Street Redevelopment Project Area. The applicant's representative was Craig Smith, Architect. Howard Moms (staff): As reported at a prior meeting, the landscaping plan does not conform with the city's adopted Landscape Standards and Specifications. Specific written comments were provided, and are listed below under "staff recommendations and requirements." Mr. Shigetomi: More trees must be provided. The plan shows only 3 palm trees along the eastern property line. He pointed to other locations on plans to show where trees should be added: 2 in the planter along the front property line, 3 in the planter at the rear of the site, and 1 in a planter that separates two parking spaces, to the fore of the trash enclosure. Four of these trees will be Camphor trees: the 2 in front, and 2 in the rear portion of the site. Mr. Smith was opposed to adding more trees, especially Camphor trees. As a self-serve car wash, where customers would be detailing their own cars in the parking area, it is important that leaf litter be eliminated from the development. Mr. Shigetomi: Yet, the minimum development standards must be satisfied. More trees must be provided. Attention was directed to the planter at the west end of the building. How will the Trumpet Vine be trained upon this wall? Mr. Smith: The builder will install anchors within the concrete block. Mr. Morris asked Mr. Shigetomi whether the plant sizes were appropriately specified? The board normally requires that the size of Palm trees be specified by trunk height, rather than the size of the box. Mr. Shigetomi agreed that a minimum height of 8 feet of "brown trunk" will be required. He explained to the applicant that experience indicates that the size of a Palm tree does not necessarily increase with the size of the box. He also asked what is proposed between two parking spaces, where a rectangular area is delineated with diagonal stripes? Mr. Smith explained that this is ahandicapped-accessible parking space, and the pavement will be striped as a pathway. Mr. Prothero wondered whether a handicapped space would be necessary. The law is based upon the number of employees. As a self-serve car wash, there should be none. City of Orange • Design Review Board MeetingMinutes for May 3, 1995 Page 3 Mr. Smith replied that the Building Division has already reviewed this proposal, and is requiring this as part of the site plan. Mr. Shigetomi: In addition to the trees, the applicant should also provide a hedgerow in the planter along the front property line, which will be allowed to grow and maintained to a height of 36 inches, or so. These shrubs will be planted from 5-gallon containers, minimum size. Mr. Smith agreed that plans may be revised to include such a hedge. Mr. Prothero: This is a preliminary submittal, is it not? Mr. Morns: It is the board's discretion. The final plans may be reviewed by staff, if delegated. Otherwise, a final submittal to D.R.B. will be required. Either way, some modifications will be necessary for the imgation plan. Mr. Shigetomi and Mr. Prothero agreed that a final submittal should be made to the board. MOTION by Beau Shigetomi to approve the proposal as a preliminary plan, subject to revisions made on the content of discussion: 6 trees will be added to the planting plan, including 4 Camphor trees, and a hedgerow will be provided along the front of the property, comprised of plants from 5-gallon containers, planted at least 36 inches on center. SECOND: Erika Wolfe AYES: Steve Prothero, Beau Shigetomi & Erika Wolfe NOES: None ABSENT: Robert Hornacek MOTION CARRIED Staff Recommendations & Requirements - • A Precision Landscape Grading plan must be certified by a Civil Engineer, and is required prior to issuance of a building permit. SHEET L-1, LANDSCAPE PLAN • Indicate plant quantities and size on plan, indicate trees on plan, and provide shrub screen at front of project adjacent to sidewalk, per DRB Guidelines. SHEET L-2, LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION PLAN • Irrigation legend is incomplete. Provide manufacture, size, model number, etc. • Provide the following note: NOTIFY COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT, (714) 744-5596, FOR IRRIGATION MAIN LINE PRESSURE TEST AND COVERAGE TEST, 48 HOURS NOTICE REQUIRED. • Landscape Plans will require Plan Check and approval by the Building, Fire, Traffic, Public Works and Community Services Departments. City of Orange • Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for May 3, 1995 Page 4 3) DRB 3028 - HENRY LIM 1881-1911 N. TUSTIN ST. New tenant signs for retail commercial center; C-TR (Limited Business) District, Tustin R.P.A. Mr. Prothero had a questions about how the wall signs would be constructed. Will they be recessed into the walls, as once proposed, or applied directly to the face of the building? What is the dimension of the sign cabinet, as shown on the second page? Will texture coating match the stucco finish of the building? If not, is the texture coating really necessary? The other board members agreed that these issues should be addressed. However, the applicant sent no representative to this meeting. MOTION by Steve Prothero to continue the review of this item until scheduled for review at a later date. SECOND: Erika Wolfe AYES: Steve Prothero, Beau Shigetomi & Erika Wolfe NOES: None ABSENT: Robert Hornacek MOTION CARRIED Staff Recommendations & Requirements - The applicant has not complied with the board's request of February 8, 1995, requiring a modified landscape plan be submitted to staff for approval, indicating the addition of trees to existing planters at the center. This plan should be submitted for review and approval before a building permit is issued. City of Orange • Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for May 3, 1995 Page S 4) DRB 3041 - LUCKYS (CORNING DEVELOPMENT) 940 N. TUSTIN AVE. Revision to freestanding sign; C-TR (Limited Business) District, Tustin St. R.P.A. Tim Donovan (staff) explained that a variance application that was related to this proposal is now withdrawn. The applicant, the property owner and a restaurant tenant have come to an agreement that display area for an existing sign on Tustin Street will be shared, and there will be no expansion proposed. The planning staff is authorized to approve a "face change," so long as the colors and materials are consistent, and an opaque background is provided (O.M.C. § 17.78.020). As part of their agreement, the applicant would like to expand the display area for another sign on the same property, near Collins Avenue. Mr. Prothero had some questions as to whether the revised proposal satisfied sign code requirements that affect the number and location of signs on the property. Jim Donovan: Yes, the proposal is consistent with those requirements. Permits may be issued subject to D.R.B. approval. Mr. Prothero:...As long as the plastic panels are the same colors and have an opaque background. Mr. Donovan agreed. Board members agreed that the proposal was adequate, subject to compliance with sign code requirements. Discussion with the applicant would not be necessary unless the applicant wishes to speak. Joe Mueller (of Federal Sign) was the applicant's representative. He understood the code requirements, and was willing to accept these restrictions and modify plans without further discussion. MOTION by Erika Wolfe to approve the proposal as planned, except that plastic panels must have an opaque background (per O.M.C. § 17.78.060, Subsection B-6), and uniform colors for the copy and background (per O.M.C. § 17.78.020, Subsection B). SECOND: Beau Shigetomi AYES: Steven C. Prothero, Beau Shigetomi & Erika Wolfe NOES: None ABSENT: Robert Hornacek MOTION CARRIED City of Orange • Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for May 3, 1995 Page 6 S) DRB 3055 - DANNY F. SHIELDS 433 E. LA VETA AVE. (NO REVISED PLAN SUBMITTED) Building plans for the reconstruction of a residential garage, with a second story addition; Old Towne and R-2 (Residential Duplex) Districts. Mr. Shields was present to discuss the proposal. He explained that the building is currently in a state of disrepair, largely because improvements that he had initiated required partial removal of the roof, and were later stopped by a building inspector, or "red tagged." Mr. Shields had a previous application considered by the city last autumn, and feels that this proposal takes into account most of the comments that were relayed through his architect. He is no longer represented by the architect, and prepared these plans personally. It is hoped that the new plans will be approved, so that he may obtain a building permit. Mr. Prothero asked the staff whether the basic site planning issues were resolved. He recalled that last time around, there were certain adjustments required to make the building fit within the property. Additionally, the question of the parking requirement was raised in the administrative session by Mr. Shigetomi. There is another garage project on this agenda for asingle-family residential project, and the board has been informed that atwo-car garage is required at that location. Jim Donovan: The minimum development standards for the R-2 zone have been satisfied by this proposal. The other applicant owns property in an R-1 district, where atwo-car garage is required. Parking requirements for the R-2 zone differ, so that cone-car garage is acceptable for this development. Mr. Shigetomi: He questions whether the proposal will work on a technical level. How will a car fit within the garage, with the stairway to the upper level? The stairway is aligned so that it has two different tread widths, and is offset from the ground level to the upper floor. How much clearance is there between the edge of the stairway and the inside of the building wall? Mr. Shields: 10 feet, as required by ordinance. Mr. Shigetomi: What about the door in the side wall? How can you open the door when there's a car parked inside? (Mr. Prothero said that the door may be changed to swing out, rather than inward.) Mr. Shields replied that the door would only be used when there is no car in the garage. He is proposing a driveway that is long enough to park between the garage and the street, occasionally. He is also proposing a parking space alongside the garage, beneath a carport. Dan Ryan (staff) questioned whether a carport can be permitted at this location, under development standards. The existing garage is a detached building, and subject to different setback requirements. Attaching the two structures makes the new garage and the residence a singular structure. Mr. Shields replied that if it is a problem, he can eliminate the carport from his plans, and leave the same area designated as an open parking space. Mr. Prothero: More detail will have to be provided, if the carport cover remains part of the proposal. City of Orange • Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for May 3, 1995 Page 7 Mr. Ryan also reminded the board that issues of bulk and mass were related to prior review of this project. He is concerned that the property is surrounded by single-story development, and a tall building of narrow proportions would look out of place at this location. Mr. Shields disagreed with the assertion that the property is located within a single story environment. There is a substantial majority of two-story structures on his block, around the corners on Center and Shaffer Streets. He did not understand why the previous project was characterized as "monolithic." What is the standard that affects such an issue of concern? Mr. Prothero explained that bulk and mass are terms that have been used to define issues that pertain to architectural context, and how new development fits within the neighborhood. He recommends that the applicant reconsider the general form of the building. Internally, the stairway and the door might be situated against the same wall to conserve interior space, rather than be part of opposite walls (as proposed). The doorway can be tucked beneath the stairs, where allowed by overhead clearance. He would rather see the upper story turned 90 degrees, as recommended in review of the previous proposal, and offset so that the east elevation of each level is located on the same vertical plane. The stairway should be situated along that one wall. Mr. Prothero made detailed sketches to illustrate his recommendations, including an axonometric view of the structure. He is not opposed to what the applicant is trying to achieve, but he is uncomfortable with this specific proposal. There are too many contradictions on plans, and unknowns about potential construction. If asked to take an action on this proposal, as it is drawn, he would probably make a motion for denial. The board discussed the importance of having professional designer or architect prepare the plans. It is of added importance here because the project is a two-story structure, and will require that the architectural plans be supported with structural calculations by a licensed engineer, for the building department submittal. Otherwise, Mr. Shields was urged to follow Old Towne design guidelines, and use wood siding and roofing materials that match the house. Mr. Shields said that he will consider the board's recommendations, and seek assistance as needed. MOTION by Erika Wolfe to continue the review of this proposal until revised plans are submitted for the board's consideration. 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 May 3, 1995 Page 8 New Proposals - 6) DRB 2640 -HOUSE OF HOPE /ORANGE COUNTY RESCUE M/SS/ON 367 S. LEMON ST. Fence installation at a group home; Old Towne, R-4 (Residential Maximum Multiple Family) Districts. Dan Ryan (staff) reported that the applicant contacted him by telephone last Monday, and said that he would not be able to attend this evening's meeting. He asks that the review be rescheduled for the next meeting. No motion made, no action taken. City of Orange • Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for May 3, 1995 Page 9 7) DRB 3050 -ROBERT AND DANNAE HOWE 317 N. CLEVELAND ST. Reconstruction of a detached garage and an addition to existing single family residence; R-2-6 (Residential Duplex) and Old Towne Districts. Dan Ryan (star: There is a question as to whether the proposal is to relocate an existing garage or to demolish the garage and build a new one at a different location. This item has been duly noticed as a demolition, if such an action is required as part of the development. Jim Donovan (staff): If a new garage will be constructed, the size of the building will probably have to be increased. While the building's footprint is big enough for atwo-car garage, building elevations indicate that half of the building would serve as an accessory use, with aone-car garage door on the other half. He left a phone message with the applicants last week, but never had the opportunity to discuss their proposal with them, until now. The homeowners were present at the meeting. Mr. Howe stated that he would use the accessory portion of the garage as a workshop for his motorcycles. Since he uses a motorcycle as his only form of personal transportation, the family does not need atwo-car garage. Mr. Prothero: The two-car garage is a requirement of Orange Municipal Code that affects all development according to land use. The board cannot modify a requirement to suit the applicant's purposes. Ms. Wolfe asked the applicants to clarify whether the building would be relocated or newly constructed. Mr. Howe: They intend to build a new building. He needs the shop space. The existing building is falling apart, and they would match the architectural style and detail. He would like to maintain the same general appearance of the building, and is concerned about the impacts of the parking requirement. Wouldn't a two-car garage require afull-width door? Mr. Shigetomi: Not necessarily... Mr. Prothero: It's possible to build the garage to code with two doors, and have space for a workshop as well. Two one-car garage doors might be used with a post to divide the entrance. He is more concerned about the driveway. The width of a two-car garage will also affect the width of the driveway. More pavement will be required to construct an approach for the garage opening. Atwenty-five-foot backup area is required behind each parking space, unless the development standards will allow a shortened area with a turning radius so that each car uses the same area. Additionally, the board typically requires that a split driveway be provided for lots within the Old Towne area. Mr. Donovan agreed that a degree of modification to the back-up requirement is possible, for asingle- family residential driveway. Mr. Howe asked whether concrete is a required as pavement, or can a permeable surface be used instead? City of Orange • Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for May 3, 1995 Page 10 Mr. Donovan: The city's parking ordinance does not specifically require that the driveway be paved with concrete. However, the surface material is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. The use of alternative materials (such as turf block, gravel, individual paving stones or brick) may be permitted. Mr. Prothero: Regarding the room addition, the building elevations look fine, assuming that the new windows are made of wood. Mr. Howe was aware that wood frames and sashes would be required. He asked whether casement windows may be used, rather than double-hung windows? Mr. Ryan explained the reasons why wood materials have been required in the past. The aesthetic (or architectural) concern is primarily related to the third dimension of depth that is most difficult to determine from building elevations, but well afforded by wood products within a window frame. The type of the window is not so important as the relief that is provided within a building's exterior appearance. MOTION by Erika Wolfe to approve the proposal subject to modification, based upon the content of discussion. The applicant has expressed an interest in maintaining the architectural character and historic detail of the existing garage. Once plans have been revised according to the city's parking ordinance, the Senior Planner (Historic Preservation) may approve the proposal if it is determine that plans most appropriately resemble the building elevations that were originally submitted for review. SECOND: Beau Shigetomi AYES: Steven C. Prothero, Beau Shigetomi & Erika Wolfe NOES: None ABSENT: Robert Hornacek MOTION CARRIED City of Orange • Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for May 3, 1995 Page I1 8) DRB 3053 -THOMAS P. COX, ARCHITECT N.W.C. CHAPMAN AVE. AND PROSPECT ST. Recommendation to Planning Commission: C.U.P. 2109. New pharmacy store with drive-through window; C-1 (Limited Business) District. There was no one present to discuss this project. During preliminary administrative review, board members identified several issues that they would like to have addressed. Their concerns are identified here for discussion purposes at a later meeting, since the applicant's plans have already been distributed. Mr. Prothero: Proposed landscaping seems to be quite minimal. He asked the staffto verify data within the architect's calculations that indicate the development satisfies the code requirement. (Subsequent review of the proposal indicates that only 6.75 percent of the project site is landscaped. The landscaped area is deficient by approximately 460 square feet.) No photographs were available for review. Mr. Shigetomi asked whether this was the site of an old Unocal station. How is the property presently developed? Jim Donovan (staff] replied that the service station has been demolished, and there is only a billboard left upon the property. The height and display area of this sign exceeds the city's maximum standards (O.M.C. § 17.78.070). The non-conforming structure should be removed before new development occurs (O.M.C. § 17.78.170). Chuck Lau (staff) reported that he has discussed the building signs with the applicant. The number of signs (and the aggregate display area) also exceed the maximum limits of O.M.C. § 17.78.080. At this point in the process, the sign limitations are less important than requirements that would affect the site plan. Misters Prothero and Shigetomi expressed concerns that landscaping relief be sought now, so that site plan adjustments be made sooner, rather than later. What is the standard width of a drive aisles? The building is encircled by four drive aisles of four different widths. There are no landscaped planters along the foundation of the building. Perhaps the architect can devise a better circulation plan to make a more effective use of the property that would include more landscaping. The board is also concerned about a lack of landscaping along the rear property line. Mr. Prothero: Will the 7-foot-high chain-link fence be limited to the area where the satellite dish is located, or will it extend laterally along the rear property line? Additionally, space should be provided within building elevations for anarchitecturally-integrated sign proposal. These elevations show many cabinet signs affixed to the building fascia. The sign code limits a building to one sign per elevation, with no more than four signs on a building. Finally, all board members present are concerned about the location of the satellite dish, and the chain link fencing that is proposed as screening material. Why can't the satellite dish be integrated within the roof design? If a screening material is required on grade, why can't a more substantial architectural solution be found? The chain-link fencing was considered to be an unacceptable material for the purpose of screening the A.C. condenser on the north side of the building. A landscaped planter would better suit this purpose. Since there was no applicant's representative available to discuss these matters, review of the item will be continued until May 17. No motion was made, and no action taken. City of Orange • Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for May 3, 1995 Page 12 9) DRB 3056 -RALPH ESP/NOZA 540 W. CHAPMAN AVE. Outdoor patio enclosure for a restaurant; Old Towne District, Santa Fe Depot Area Specific Plan. The applicant had no representative at this meeting. Mr. Prothero asked how the city normally considers this type of use. Does it count as part of the restaurant or is it simply the use of extra space? Jim Donovan (staff) replied that the proposed outdoor dining area is part of a parking lot that was cut off from Chapman Avenue when the street was widened. The residual property has no present use. The added dining area would have to be calculated as restaurant space, with its own specific parking demand. Dan Ryan (staff has been working with the applicant, and spoke to him just this afternoon to remind him of tonight's meeting. He has informed the applicant about parking requirements for outdoor dining areas, and has also encouraged that a landscaped planter be provided across the front of the patio, along the public right of way. Misters Prothero and Shigetomi agreed that landscaping plans should be part of the proposal. Generally, the applicant's plans need much more detail. A freestanding sign is indicated at the corner, with nothing to explain what materials are used, or the method of construction. Jim Donovan added that Old Towne design standards do not allow freestanding signs to exceed a height of 42 inches. If a sign is desired by the applicant, perhaps awall-mounted sign may be integrated within the design of the patio enclosure. Since there was no applicant's representative available to discuss these matters, review of the item will be continued until May 17. No motion was made, and no action taken. City of Orange • Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for May 3, 1995 Page 13 10) DRB 3057 -LANCE MILLER 132-140 S. GLASSELL ST. Facade restoration after seismic retrofit; C-1, Old Towne Districts, Southwest R.P.A. Mr. Shigetomi recalled another proposal that concerned the seismic stabilization of an unreinforced masonry building (U.R.M.) in the Plaza Historic District, and the effort to enhance restoration of the building's facade (D.R.B. 3027). Out of concern for equal treatment among applicants, he would like to know why this applicant is not required to do more to upgrade the building facade? Mr. Prothero stated that he had the same thought. Dan Ryan (staff: U.R.M. project impacts upon a facade are determined by the engineering of the underlying steel work. In this case, the steel frame was located deeper within the building. The only part of the facade to be affected is where two steel I-beams drop down from the upper part of the building, through a recessed arcade and into the basement. The steel for the Ehlen & Grote (or Smith & Ebert) building was situated immediately adjacent to the facade. Construction required that the building's facade be removed to construct the new framework. Subsequent debate concerned how that facade would be replaced. Construction of the steel frame is not affecting so much of this building's elevations. The property owner was represented by Mike Van Volkom. This building is in the middle of the seismic retrofit at the moment. There was not much leeway in placement of steel columns. The location of steel beams is dictated by existing conditions. Mr. Prothero: Yes, but if the work is already permitted and done, what is the point of discussion? The board's concern is now related to the external appearance of the building. Mr. Van Volkom: True. The relationship is that limitations exist to limit the amount of work that can be done. His proposal is to wrap the steel I-beams so that the work is concealed behind a wooden box, similar to the architectural treatment at other locations along the facade. He referred the board to photographs submitted with the application. The current tenant has taken great care to develop the arcade as a "tea court," which the city has approved. Ms. Wolfe: The staff reports that the tea court was not approved, per se. There has never been a design review submittal, nor did the staff authorize any permit that allowed the use of this arcade as a tea court. Mr. Van Volkom referred to a letter he submitted with this Design Review Board application, prepared by the Code Enforcement manager. Tim Donovan (staff) advised that the letter was prepared at the addressee's request, and merely states that there is no violation of Orange Municipal Code, specifically with respect to an alleged restaurant use of the public right of way. The letter's conclusion is that the tea court (1) is located wholly upon private property, and (2) is not a bona fide restaurant, according to the city's definition of a "restaurant" (O.M.C. § 17.04.190). City of Orange • Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for May 3, 1995 Page 14 Mr. Prothero briefly discussed the benefits of a facade easement program that was discussed in relation to the Plaza Design Collaborative project. If the financial component to the program is ever established, there would be much progress made in restoring building elevations that front upon the Plaza. He is unsure that the program will ever be implemented... The first preference is to restore the building facade to the extent that it is historically appropriate. Would the applicant be willing to rebuild the storefront in its original location? Mr. Van Volkom: According to a previous property owner, the recessed arcade was created as part of a city program to encourage the downtown building owners to provide more sidewalk space in front of their buildings. The property owner is not really interested in eliminating these arcades at present. Mr. Prothero asked the applicant to explain how the woodwork would be integrated within the arcade. What is planned at the rear of the columns? Mr. Van Volkom: We intend to just wrap the wood around all four sides. Mr. Prothero: And leave a 3-inch gap between the back of the column and the storefront window? (Yes.) Mr. Shigetomi: Sothis is the only tenant space where the steel beams will be installed? (Yes.) Mr. Ryan explained the difficulties that he has experienced in review of the U.R.M. projects. The state- mandated program placed a great deal of pressure upon the property owners and the city to complete the work in a timely manner, to ensure adequate protection of the public safety. Engineering plans tend to be more technical than illustrative. If drawings are provided at all, they generally appear as simple line drawings, or diagrams. Under a deadline to get their projects underway, most engineers employed a "facade by others" approach. Assumptions about the existing structure often proved to be incorrect, and many approved projects required later field review and modifications to structural plans. Mr. Ryan led a discussion of the structural components to this particular project. Mr. Prothero: It seems difficult to require much for this building, since it is a relatively minor job. His main concern is with the 3-inch separation between glass and the columns. The treatment of storefront windows should be better integrated within plans. Why can't the existing glass storefront be removed and repositioned so that glass is aligned with the new pillars? Mr. Van Volkom: The tenant does not need the added space. She would rather the tea court stay as large as possible. The property owner is quite sensitive to construction costs. The retrofit has already "run into six figures." Mr. Prothero discussed another option with the applicant's representative. His main difficulty about the proposal is that subsequent construction would appear as an afterthought. Recognizing that this architectural treatment is already established and continuous along the building facade, there is no need to require drastic change for this individual tenant space. At a minimum, he recommends that the wood be extended beyond the back of the column, so that the space between the column and the window is eliminated. Existing plate glass windows may be buried within the wood enclosure, along with each steel City of Orange • Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for May 3, 1995 Page 1 S column, so that the window appears to die at the column, and the column appears to extend into the building. A sketch was provided to illustrate the recommendation. Ms. Wolfe: Whatever the applicant chooses to do, it appears that these plans will not be approved. Perhaps the applicant is willing to resume the discussion at a later date? Mr. Van Volkom agreed. He is not in a position to authorize changes to the plan, without consulting his client first. Mr. Prothero summarized the applicant's options, in the order of preference: (I) The storefront for this tenant's bay maybe replaced at the original position, although a more detailed set of elevations will be required before the project can be approved. (2) The existing glass curtain could be removed and relocated in a manner to fill the void between the new I-beam supports. (3) The depth of each wooden box should be increased to extend beyond the glass curtain, so that the glass appears to end at the edge of each pillar. MOTION by Erika Wolfe to continue the review of this item until a revised plan is submitted. SECOND: Beau Shigetomi AYES: Steven C. Prothero, Beau Shigetomi & Erika Wolfe NOES: None ABSENT: Robert Hornacek MOTION CARRIED City of Orange • Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for May 3, 1995 Page 16 11) DRB 3058 -LUTHERAN HIGH SCHOOL ASSOCIATION OF ORANGE COUNTY 2222 N. SANTIAGO BLVD. Recommendation to Planning Commission: C.U.P. 2110. Office addition and new parking facility for an existing school; R-1 (Single Family Residential) District. Mr. Prothero expressed an opinion that the architectural proposal looks all right to him, but the board must see a landscaping plan as part of the proposal. Photographs of the existing development were reviewed. Mr. Prothero asked Mr. Shigetomi whether he had any concerns about the existing landscaping. Mr. Shigetomi: For a use of this nature, and the scale of development, continuation of the existing theme is encouraged (deep lawns, limited use of shrubbery). It would help to know how the addition and changes to the driveway will affect the existing trees. Their approximate locations and sizes should be plotted on the landscaping plans. Ms. Wolfe agreed that she had no concerns about the proposal, so long as a landscaping plan is prepared and submitted for review at a later date. The applicant was represented by Rich Brumfield, RCB Architecture. Mr. Prothero indicated to Mr. Brumfield that it was likely that the board will make a recommendation to the planning commission that is favorable. He asked whether it was understood that a landscaping plan is required as a part of the process of review and approval. (Yes.) MOTION by Erika Wolfe to recommend approval of the proposal, as submitted. Landscape and irrigation plans must be submitted for review and approval by the Design Review Board, prior to issuance of a building permit. SECOND: Beau Shigetomi AYES: Steven C. Prothero, Beau Shigetomi & Erika Wolfe NOES: None ABSENT: Robert Hornacek MOTION CARRIED City of Orange • Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for May 3, 1995 Page 17 12) DRB 3059 - DENNY'S RESTAURANT NO. 0154 3000 W. CHAPMAN AVE. Replacement signs for existing restaurant; C-2 (General Business) District, Southwest R.P.A. The applicants were represented by Jim Sterk, Superior Electrical Advertising, and Squeak Kossnar, Laurie's Permit Service. Mr. Sterk: Denny's has a desire to update its image. These applications (Also see D.R.B. 3060) request approval for some rather straightforward changes that affect the signs, and architectural trim. Mr. Prothero: The problem with this proposal is that side elevations include roof signs. Initial discussion with staff leads us to understand that plans have once been modified to address the problem. (Roof signs are prohibited under O.M.C. § 17.78.050, although wall signs installed on dormers or parapet walls have been permitted, subject to review and approval by D.R.B.) Mr. Sterk: We propose to run sheet metal from the sides of the sign cabinets, back to the roof of the building. Mr. Prothero: Categorically, this is aroof-mounted sign, and it is his opinion that a sheet metal shroud does nothing to make the sign qualify as a wall sign on an architectural feature, such as that proposed on the primary elevation. Even this aspect of the proposal is questionable, because the materials are dissimilar. (Assuming that the dormer would be fabricated of sheet metal and attached to a tiled roof.) Mr. Sterk: Actually, the roof element of this dormer would be designed to match the existing roof materials. Only the gable end would differ. We can provide material samples, if desired. Mr. Prothero: That would be helpful, but the other problem on side elevations will not be resolved in matching the building materials. Mr. Shigetomi agreed. Mr. Sterk understood the distinction. Would installation of wall signs be acceptable, as an alternative? Misters Prothero and Shigetomi: Yes. Ms. Wolfe: But we need to see a specific proposal. Mr. Kossnar requested consideration of an item that was omitted from the plan: a neon trim band around the top of the building. Does the board have any problem with a neon trim band? Mr. Shigetomi (to staff): Are there any code prohibitions or limitations? (No.) Erika Wolfe: How many bands are proposed, and of what color? Mr. Kossnar: A singular green band. City of Orange • Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for May 3, 1995 Page 18 Mr. Prothero: It would depend partly upon the architecture of the building, and where it is proposed. Mr. Kossnar pointed to a low parapet at the top of the roofline, which is used to screen the rooftop equipment situated at the center of the building. At the other restaurant (D.R.B. 3060), the neon band would be applied directly to the fascia of the roof. Mr. Prothero: At this location (on West Chapman Avenue), he would have no problem with it. However, the other restaurant is awfully close to the street, at a depressed elevation. Furthermore, the building's roof design has no horizontal element that would receive the neon band in a manner that does not look like an afterthought. Attention turned to the second building - (See D.R.B. 3060) City of Orange • Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for May 3, 1995 Page 19 13) DRB 3060 • DENNY'S RESTAURANT NO. 1234 1695 E. LINCOLN AVE. Replacement signs for existing restaurant; C-TR District, Tustin St. R.P.A. The board reviewed photographs of existing development. Discussion is continued from D.R.B. 3059. Erika Wolfe: Neon is not going to be appropriate here, because the roof of the building is right at the edge of the street. The neon trim band would be installed below eye-level, from the height of the street. Mr. Prothero has a concern about letter height, if signs are relocated to the walls. The applicant should be aware that letter height is limited by the sign code, to 24 inches. Mr. Sterk: That is no problem. The current proposal calls for lettering that is 1'-10" at the maximum height for capital letters, and substantially less for lower case letters. Mr. Prothero is also concerned about the integration of the proposed dormer with the architecture of this particular building. There is aflat-roofed extension of the building that protrudes from the primary elevation. The new entry sign would be located partially over the entryway, and partly over (and behind) the flat roof. It should be centered over one portion of the building or another. There is also a question about how the gable end would be joined to the fascia. He would like to see a detail. Mr. Sterk agreed that the dormer should be repositioned. Mr. Kossnar: Is it possible to resolve these concerns through a conditioned approval? Erika Wolfe: No. Mr. Prothero: We need to see the specific roof materials, sign specifications for the wall signs, an architectural detail on how the dormer is attached at (or near) the fascia. Photographs of similar installations would help. While the use of neon is acceptable on Chapman Avenue, the neon trim band needs to be restudied at Lincoln Avenue and Tustin Street. MOTION by Mr. Prothero to continue review of these proposals until May 17, 1995, based upon the content of discussion. SECOND: Erika Wolfe AYES: Steven C. Prothero, Beau Shigetomi & Erika Wolfe NOES: None ABSENT: Robert Hornacek MOTION CARRIED City of Orange • Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for May 3, 1995 Page 20 14) DRB 3061- TRADER JOE'S 8 SAV-ON (CHARLES KOBER ASSOCIATES) N.W.C TUST/N ST. 8 MEATS AVE (MALL OF ORANGE) New retail building; C-TR District, Tustin St. R.P.A. The applicants were represented by Keith D. Ray, of Charles Kober Associates. Jim Donovan (staff): This project has been reviewed by Environmental Review Board a number of times. It meets all development standards for the C-TR zone, but the Senior Traffic Engineer would like a break within the continuous landscaped planter (on the north edge of the site plan) removed so that on-site vehicular movements do not interfere with traffic related to the drive approach on Tustin Street. Additionally, the staff and the applicant have discussed a possibility that the board may desire better screening for the Sav-on loading and unloading area. Mr. Prothero: a related issue is the narrow landscape planter along the main entry aisle. Could the width of this planter be increased? Mr. Ray: It is an existing planter. It would be difficult to change because it is located between the main access drive for the south end of the mall property and adjacent parking spaces. It is also aligned with the front of the Sears building, and is technically located on a separate property. Mr. Prothero: Is the parking area to the north side of Sav-on required to satisfy parking requirements? Mr. Donovan: Not really. The mall has a parking surplus. Mr. Ray: Yes, but the mall's management does not want the number of parking spaces reduced, because the surplus parking spaces will be required in the future for the mall's expansion. Mr. Prothero asked whether it is necessary to have such a large area for back-up behind parking spaces on the north side of Sav-on, at the new parking and shipping and receiving area. The two-way drive aisle scales out at 38 to 40 feet wide. Jim Donovan: Only 25 feet is required. Mr. Ray did not think it was necessary to have this area so wide. He agreed to pull the parking spaces back toward the building so that more landscaping can be provided within the median that divides this parking area from the main access drive. However, it will not be possible to increase the width of the median west of the north-south drive aisle along the western wall of the new development. Mr. Prothero agreed. Mr. Shigetomi: Are there any trees being removed to accommodate the new development (near the public rights of way)? Mr. Ray: No. The project site is far enough back from the street corner that it will not affect the existing landscaping. City of Orange • Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for May 3, 1995 Page 21 Jim Donovan: The setback that is proposed includes a buffer of dedicated property that will be used for a right-turn lane and a bus bay. If there are any trees removed in the future, it will be the result of the city's street-widening project. Mr. Shigetomi discussed the city's future road work with the applicant and staff. Howard Morns stated that the new irrigation system should be planned to anticipate the street widening. Dual systems should be provided, so that the project's irrigation system does not have to be revised when the city makes planned improvements. Mr. Prothero asked the applicant to explain the delivery requirements. What size trucks are used? How long are the trucks likely to remain parked alongside the building? Is there a truck dock? Mr. Ray: There is no dock. The delivery trucks are rather small; at least there will be no semi-trucks or trailers associated with the development. Sav-on relies upon frequent deliveries in relatively small amounts. The trucks have lifts at the back, and individual pallets are lowered to grade level. The shipping and receiving doors are doubled "man" doors, within an opening approximately 6 feet wide and 6'-8" high. Mr. Prothero: There is some confusion about the plans. While the site plan shows a screening wall 16 feet long on the north side of the building, elevations show a wall that is approximately 72 feet long at the same location. Mr. Ray: Yes, the elevations are not consistent with a revised site plan. The site plan has been revised a number of times since the elevations were originally prepared. The site plan reflects what is now proposed. Mr. Prothero (to Mr. Shigetomi): Given the traffic engineer's request that the connection between drive aisles be eliminated north of this service area, the area should be filled with landscaping. Mr. Shigetomi agreed. Mr. Prothero: The screening wall should be extended to run through this area. Mr. Shigetomi also suggested that area would be well-suited to a clustered grove of trees. Howard Moms (staff): Perhaps the landscaping palette should match the theme of the mall's parking area. Mr.Ray wasn't sure that the board would actually want the plant material to match, if they knew what is presently planted there. The landscaping plan that is proposed is far more detailed and viable than what is existing. Mr. Shigetomi agreed that this proposal is preferable. His only other concern is the potential conflict between parking lot lighting and trees within planters in the parking area. While he prefers to see the light standards integrated within planters from an aesthetic standpoint, his experience proves that as the trees grow to a mature height, they will block the light. When there is a conflict between landscaping and security standards, it is the landscaping that is ultimately compromised. City of Orange • Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for May 3, 1995 Page 22 Mr. Prothero: Otherwise, the architecture looks good. (To the board members-) Dces anybody have any problems with the building? (No.) MOTION by Beau Shigetomi to approve the building elevations as submitted. Landscape plans will be revised and submitted to the board for final review and approval. Landscape modifications will include a wider median between the main access drive and the north wall of the Sav-on building. The site plan will be modified to eliminate the two-way drive aisle break between the same planter and the landscaping that is adjacent to Tustin Street, and landscaping plans will be revised to establish continuity. The screening wall will be extended through the same area. Light standards will also be pulled out of the landscaped areas, and installed independently on foundations in the parking area. SECOND: Erika Wolfe AYES: Steven C. Prothero, Beau Shigetomi & Erika Wolfe NOES: None ABSENT: Robert Hornacek MOTION CARRIED Adjournment: 7:40 P.M.