Loading...
1995-05-17 Final DRC MinutesCity of Orange Design Review Board M I N U T E S for May 17, 1995 Board Members Present: Board Members Absent: Steven C. Prothero, Chair Beau Shigetomi Erika Wolfe Robert Hornacek Staff attendants: Tim Donovan, Associate Planner Howard Morns, Landscape Coordinator Dan Ryan, Senior Planner Historic Preservation Administrative Session - 4: 30 P.M. 1) Review minutes for May 3, 1995; preview applications listed on this agenda. Jim Donovan (staff) reported that today is the final filing day for the vacant D.R.B. position. An appointment may be made as early as May 23, 1995, by the Mayor and City Council. An applicant with apreviously-continued review requests a final decision, for the purpose of "closure." Mike Van Volkom, architect for B. Lance Miller, does not intend to revise plans according to the board's recommendations from last May 3. He would rather have a decision made with respect to the original proposal. MOTION by Erika. Wolfe to approve the meeting minutes with a revision to one item: DRB 3057, Lance Miller.. The minutes should be amended to state that the board will not approve the proposal as submitted. The project is therefore denied. SECOND: Beau Shigetomi AYES: Steven 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 17, 1995 Page 2 2) DRB 2640 -HOUSE OF HOPE /ORANGE COUNTY RESCUE MISSION 367 S. LEMON ST. Fence installation at a group home; Old Towne, R-4 (Residential Maximum Multiple Family) Districts. The project was presented by Mark Smith and Jim Palmer. Mr. Smith: There are two items we aze here to discuss this evening. One is the finish material on a trash enclosure (that is built into the supporting column of the porte cochere). Another is a proposal to install an automatic gate for the parking azea. Before construction of the project was completed, the Edison Company determined that their transformer must be placed in the present location, right beside the block wall that is part of the trash enclosure. There is a minimum clearance required on all sides of a transformer. River rock facing that was applied to the exterior of these could not be used to complete the exterior of the trash enclosure on the north side, as originally proposed, because the "plant-on's" would interfere with the cleazance requirement. Finish materials aze now dissimilar. Concrete block remains visible on the north side, in contrast with the river rock veneer applied to the other walls. The applicant would also like to install the rolling steel gate, on a recommendation by U.S. H.U.D. It will soon be awazded as a model in the category of "transitional housing" for women and children in the United States, according to H.U.D. The gate is considered to be a necessity for the well-being of the people who live there. The applicant would like to put spread metal lathe across the gate, to prevent the children from placing hands or feet in between the wrought iron pickets. It was the staffs determination that both of these items deviated from the approved plans, and changes should be approved by D.R.B. Mr. Prothero: Let's look to the first issue, and then we can discuss the gate... A number of questions were asked about existing construction and the relationship to development on the adjacent property. He eventually agreed with the applicant that there are limited options in resolving this matter. Ms. Wolfe: What about an alternative thin-set veneer? Is the artificial river rock available in a product that looks the same on an elevation, but has a lower profile? Mr. Smith: The cleazance between the trash enclosure and transformer is the absolute minimum that S.C.E will allow. Dan Ryan suggested that some color be used to neutralize the contrast between the tan-colored block and gray tones of the river rock. (Agreed) Mr. Prothero: It is the very least that should be done. Attention was directed to the gate. Dces the proposal meet all the relevant access requirements? Have plans been reviewed by the Fire Department? Dan Ryan: Yes. The proposal was reviewed by E.R.B. (Continued on the following page) City of Orange • Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for May 17, 1995 Page 3 (Continued from the previous page) Jim Donovan: The gate should not interfere with parking requirements, either. No parking spaces will be eliminated, and there is a low number of trips generated by this development. Most inhabitants own no car, and there is not much of a demand for visitor parking. Jim Palmer: Is everyone familiar with the project? (Yes) Most of the residents are involved in education and job training programs that are well organized, including provisions for transportation. The facility also has on-site child care. Mr. Prothero: Concerning the operational of the gate, is it a man gate, or automatic? (Automatic, with key access) Instead of the spread metal protection, have you considered an electronic sensor? Mark Smith: It is our understanding that while sensors are widely used for garage doors, they cannot be used on gates. Mr. Shigetomi did not agree, on the basis of personal experience. Mr. Prothero, too, has been involved with projects where electronic sensors were used on gates. He is not comfortable with the proposal. Expanded metal rusts, and looks out of character with the building. There are many varieties of fencing that may be used instead of this particular design. Have you considered wrought iron? Mark Smith: Yes. We will investigate the alternatives. If we eliminate expanded metal and use wrought iron with electronic device, would that be okay? Can we obtain your approval tonight, with anything other than that to require future review and approval? (No opposition) Mr. Prothero: Now, about the finish on the trash enclosure. Paint would be the minimal level of attention to suit the problem. You might also plant a vine. Jim Palmer: Actually, there already is a vine. MOTION by Erika Wolfe, to approve a wrought iron gate with no spread metal to be permitted, and an electronic safety device as may be required by the building and safety regulations. The north-facing wall of the pone cochere will be painted gray to match the colors of the river rock on the other two walls, and the vine is an acceptable remedy to obscure the difference in finish materials on the same wall. SECOND: Beau Shigetomi AYES: Steven Prothero, Beau Shigetomi & Erika Wolfe NOES: None ABSENT: Robert Hornacek MOTION CARRIED Ciry of Orange • Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for May 17, 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 Redevelopment Project Area. Rick Hobbs represented Mr. Lim. He explained how the signs would be fabricated and installed. The desired effect is to emulate channel letters. Jim Donovan (staff] gave a brief review of previous discussion (as occurred during a regular meeting on May 3, 1995) and identified some issues of concern, to Mr. Hobbs. The proposed sign program lacks specification as to the height of each cabinet. Only the height of individual letters is identified. The board also raised a question whether the stucco finish will be applied in a manner that will match the building? Mr. Hobbs: 15 inches is total height of the cabinet. He is confident that the background finish will be made to match the building stucco. Mr. Prothero: Do you know what type of finish the contractor will apply to the building? Is it Sand or Spanish Lace? (the latter) Okay. Well, as long as the sign maker is aware of the differences, that should be sufficient. Mr. Shigetomi and Ms. Wolfe agreed. Howard Moms (staff): The applicant is reminded of a requirement to add some trees to existing planters along the front of the building. Refer to D.R.B. meeting minutes of February 8, 1995: "A modified planting plan shall be prepared to add trees within existing planters. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by staff." Tim Donovan: The staff will provide a reminder to the building contractor, or property owner. Mr. Hobbs is the sign contractor, and will not ultimately be responsible for completion of the project. MOTION by Erika. Wolfe to approve the sign proposal, subject to the clarification discussed in review. 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 17, 1995 Page S 4) 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. The applicant was represented by David Sheegog, project architect. He was given the wrong date for the D.R.B.'s review, and did not appear at the last meeting. Since then, he has obtained a summary of the board's initial comments, and met with the staff to discuss revisions that were recommended. He came prepared with a revised site plan. It seems that the board's primary concern was that landscape enhancements should be made to the site plan. (Agreed) Mr. Shigetomi: The building is surrounded by pavement on all four sides. There is no landscape relief between the sides of the building and the parking area. Mr. Sheegog: Because the use is designed to accommodate automotive access, the client does not want to complicate on-site circulation with landscaping. They also feel that customers will not see (or appreciate) the landscaping from inside their cars. There is also a concern that bushes would scratch the sides of the customers' cars. Mr. Shigetomi: The landscape obligation is to the community, as well as the customers. There should be some landscaping provided in planters at the front of the building, and along the outside edge of the drive- through aisle that is on the Prospect Street side of the building. If damage to cars is a concern, you can always select soft-stemmed plants, like Geraniums. Mr. Sheegog: If the code allows drive aisles on other sides of the building to be reduced, landscaping planters may be added to the site plan. Mr. Shigetomi: Given recent changes in technology, why does the satellite dish have to be so big? Many commercial business use dish antennae, and they are getting smaller all the time. Mr. Shcegog: The applicant's communications network is well-established. He does not know much about why this size is necessary, but the issue has been raised in review by other cities. It has only been explained to him that the communication system is dependent upon one satellite in a fixed orbit, and the technology requires a dish of this size. Mr. Prothero: Another problem was the chain link screening material that is proposed. Can't something more substantial be provided? Mr. Sheegog: As a result of discussion with staff, there will be a planter provided in front of the fence (except where the gate is). It was his understanding that the board likes to see some greenery at the back end of a long driveway, and he would have his landscape architect select a small tree for this location (so that it does not block dish reception). Vines might also be trained to grow up the fence. (Continued on the following page) City of Orange • Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for May 17, 1995 Page 6 (Continued from the previous page) Mr. Prothero: That sounds fine, but he is also concerned about the small area outside the back of the building, where the air conditioner condenser is located. Can't the material match the building, or is it necessary to screen the a.c. unit at all? Mr. Sheegog: Isn't there a code requirement that such equipment be screened from view? Jim Donovan (staff): Only for rooftop equipment ...not when the equipment is on grade; landscaping is normally sufficient for the task, when screening is desired, but the location of the equipment is also a factor. Mr. Sheegog: Very well. The fencing will be removed, at this location. Jim Donovan: Another issue the board may wish to consider is the El Modena. (East Chapman Avenue) improvement plan. The project site is not actually located within planning area boundaries, but is close to the west end. (to Mr. Sheegog) Is the client married to the blue and gray color scheme? Would they be open to using earth tones, such as atan-colored block with a red or brown roof? Mr. Sheegog: Probably not. These building have been uniformly constructed throughout the Midwest, and all the new locations in southern California. Jim Donovan (to the board): The site is surrounded by development that is not exactly consistent with the El Modena theme. There is a black pre-fabricated aluminum Texaco station to the south, and the white and vivid blue "Prospect Plaza." on the southeast corner of the same intersection. To the east is a Chevron station and the dormant Albertsons supermarket. Mr. Prothero: The only other matter we need to discuss is the sign package. These plans are unacceptable, according to staff (per code provisions). There are simply too many on the building. Smaller signs on the building's fascia should be removed, except for directional signs (enter, or exit only). The messages contained in smaller signs maybe consolidated within the one larger sign on the gable end of the roof. Regarding the freestanding sign, the reader board cannot be permitted (according to O.M.C. § 17.78.060, subsection B). Additionally, the code requires that the sign be architecturally integrated with the design of the building. When sign plans are revised, the applicant should consider a pedestal base, made of the same concrete block used for the building. The code also requires that an illuminated building address be displayed on all freestanding signs. We will have to see a revised sign proposal at a later date. Dces anybody else have any concerns? Mr. Shigetomi: A landscaping plan must be prepared and submitted for review. (Continued on the following page) City of Orange • Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for May 17, 1995 Page 7 (Continued from the previous page) MOTION by Beau Shigetomi, to recommend approval of building elevations as submitted, subject to the revision of plans to provide for adequate landscaping. Detailed landscape and irrigation plans must be submitted for the board's review at a later date, prior to issuance of any building permits. A sign plan shall also be prepared and submitted for review and approval, prior to issuance of sign permits. SECOND: Erika Wolfe AYES: Steven Prothero, Beau Shigetomi & Erika Wolfe NOES: None ABSENT: Robert Hornacek MOTION CARRIED City of Orange • Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for May 17, 1995 Page 8 S) DRB 3056 -RALPH ESP/NOZA 540 W. CHAPMAN AVE. Outdoor patio enclosure for a restaurant; Old Towne District, Santa Fe Depot Area Specific Plan. Dan Ryan (star reports that the proposal requires Planning Commission approval of a variance application. The project site is a leftover portion of a parking lot that was eliminated when Chapman Avenue was widened, circa 1989. The commercial building does not have a sufficient parking supply to allow expansion of the restaurant's operation. The applicant is informed about the appropriate process of review, and decided to apply to D.R.B. in order to determine whether the response would be favorable. Ralph Espinoza was present for discussion. Mr. Prothero informed the applicant that the board's function is to concentrate on the look, or appearance, of the project. The board is not empowered to make decisions about land use issues. Their main concern, raised in discussion last May 3, is that more landscaping should be provided along the front edges of the property. The applicant's site plan already has asix-foot-wide strip of land between the fence and the sidewalk. It would be most appropriate that this area be landscaped. Individually potted plants will not suffice. Mr. Shigetomi: You need to provide landscaping. You would have to saw-cut the concrete and remove the old pavement. Some method of irrigation must also be provided. With the large expanse of pavement that would become the patio area (14 feet wide), installation of an underground irrigation system would not be feasible. Wouldn't you have to hose down the patio area at the end of every business day ? (Yes) Perhaps the plants could be watered by hand. Howard Moms (staff): So are you saying there will be no automatic irrigation plan required for review? Mr. Shigetomi: Yes. Mr. Prothero: Otherwise, the fencing plan needs a bit of architectural attention. There should be a decorative cap on the top of the pilasters. Would the fencing material be steel or wrought iron? Mr. Espinoza: Wrought iron. Jim Donovan (staff): Dces the restaurant sell alcoholic beverages? (Yes) It's possible that A.B.C. will have some requirements to limit access, so that customers enter or exit only through the restaurant. Metal gates in the fencing plan may also need to be re-designed for "panic" egress. The staff has a question about the applicant's plan with respect to the existing freestanding sign. It is non-conforming, according to Old Towne Design Standards. Construction of the new patio area provides the opportunity to design an integrated monument sign within the masonry work. New signs in Old Towne are limited to a height of 42 inches, and must be made of wood or metal. Internally illuminated cabinet signs are no longer permitted. City of Orange • Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for May 17, 1995 Page 9 Mr. Espinoza.: We intended to keep the sign, as it now exists. Mr. Prothero suggested construction of a corner monument, or a sign on a low wall. A design would have to be submitted for review and approval. Dan Ryan: Otherwise, does the board have any concerns about wrought iron spacing between pilasters, or use of a brick material in contrast with the existing architecture of the building? (No) MOTION by Beau Shigetomi to recommend approval, if the applicant will provide a more detailed proposal to show trim caps on pilasters, and a landscape planting plan. The planted area shall have a minimum width of 5'-0". SECOND: Erika. Wolfe AYES: Steven Prothero, Beau Shigetomi & Erika Wolfe NOES : None ABSENT: Robert Hornacek MOTION CARRIED City of Orange • Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for May 17, 1995 Page 10 6) 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 applicant was represented by Squeak Kossnar. He recapped issues that were raised in previous review, and provided samples of the proposed roofing material. He also brought photographs of other restaurants that were upgraded in the same manner as those proposed in Orange. Mr. Prothero: Would the new dormer be the same color as the roof of each building, or are they all painted green? (Green) Will the roof color be changed to match? (No) He is trying to understand how the dormer will be integrated with the existing roof, given dissimilar materials and colors. In constructing these signs, Denny's appears to be letting them become an architectural element unto themselves. Ms. Wolfe agreed. The dormer looks like a separate "hood." Tim Donovan (staff): In review of the applicant's photo album, it appears that each of the other restaurants have a dormer that matches the color of the roof. The dormer is only painted green when there is a green roof. Where the restaurants have a terra cotta roof, the color of the dormer is painted to match. Mr. Kossnar asked to review the photo's. He retracted his prior comments. The color scheme that was submitted with this application indicates that the roof will remain a terra cotta. color. Mr. Shigetomi: There are inconsistencies between building elevations and sign plans. The side view of the new dormer is not shown on elevations. Mr. Prothero: Having addressed the specific construction of the dormer, he doesn't mind the sign itself, but he considers the fascia details to be no improvement. What is planned as the trim color scheme? Mr. Kossnar: A white fascia when the restaurant has a green roof, and a green fascia when the roof is red. Mr. Prothero: And this is a location where neon is proposed? (Yes) MOTION by Erika. Wolfe, to approve the proposal on the condition that the new dormer element is painted to match the existing (terra cotta) roof color. Architectural trim colors must also match the colored representation that was submitted with this application, with a green fascia along the edge of the roof. (Amended by Mr. Prothero-) Flashing must also be provided where the dormer adjoins the roof, and painted to match. (Agreed) SECOND: Steven Prothero AYES: Steven Prothero, Beau Shigetomi & Erika Wolfe NOES: None ABSENT: Robert Hornacek MOTION CARRIED City of Orange • Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for May 17, 1995 Page I1 7) 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 applicant was represented by Squeak Kossnar. (Refer to minutes for D.R.B. 3059 for related discussion, including detail of corporate color scheme. Review is also continued from May 3, 1995.) Mr. Prothero: In reference to the sign plan, you are aware that you need to include the building address as part of the sign? (Yes) Ms. Wolfe: This is the proposal that required relocation of the dormer? (Yes) Mr. Prothero noted that plans appear to have been revised according to the previous suggestion that the dormer be centered over the entryway. Mr. Kossnar asked whether the neon trim band can be installed at this location, as well. Mr. Prothero was concerned about the proximity to grade. Someone wouldn't need to be so tall as to vandalize the neon tubing. Ms. Wolfe also questioned whether the lighting would appear to be too low when viewed from Tustin Street, which is elevated along the east side of the property. Mr. Shigetomi pointed out that the building sits pretty far back from property lines. (Agreed) MOTION by Erika. Wolfe, to approve the proposal on the condition that the new dormer element is painted to match the existing (terra cotta) roof color. Architectural trim colors must also match the colored representation that was submitted with this application, with a green fascia along the edge of the roof. Flashing must also be provided where the dormer adjoins the roof, and painted to match. 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 17, 1995 Page 12 New Proposals - 8) DRB 3062 - CARROWS RESTAURANT (EXISTING BAKERS SQUARE) 2810 E. CHAPMAN AVE. Substantial modification to building elevations for an existing restaurant; C-1 District. The applicant was represented by Jeffrey Clarke, corporate architect. Mr. Prothero: The applicant is not really doing much to change the general form of the building. Mr. Clarke: That's correct, except for removal of a parapet wall, the addition of some planters. The only change to the building footprint is where entry pillars and a planter will be added. Mr. Shigetomi had a concern about existing landscaping. It will be obliterated by construction activities, as workers will require access to modify the sides of the building. Mr. Clarke: Can we just replace anything that gets trampled or removed? Mr. Shigetomi: Yes, but how will you know what to plant? It is important that the city has a plan that is reviewed and on file, and to ensure that replacement material is adequately planted. Jim Donovan (staff: This restaurant was just expanded and remodeled a short while ago. The city actually has the approved landscaping plan on file. Mr. Clarke: Can we work off of that plan? (Yes) He will arrange to have a copy made of the approved landscaping plans that are on file, and will coordinate modifications to the irrigation system with staff. Mr. Prothero: With regard to new materials, the only problem he can identify is the integration of new stone-faced pillars with wood siding. The rock facing shouldn't be applied to the height that is proposed. It doesn't look natural. He recommends that the rock be used only for the planter, and the transition to wood materials starts from the top of the planter. Mr. Clarke: Actually, we've been having second thoughts about that same detail. If we agree to make that change now, is the rest of the proposal acceptable? (Yes) MOTION by Erika Wolfe to approve building elevations that will be revised according to the content of discussion. 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 17, 1995 Page 13 9) DRB 3064 -NISSAN OF ORANGE 1140 W. KATELLA AVE. Freestanding sign at an automotive sales lot; M-2 (Industrial) District, Northwest R.P.A. The applicant was represented by Don Galloway, of Russell's Sign Contracting, Inc. The Nissan dealership is expanding the used car sales lot. He presented an overview of the proposal. Mr. Prothero had some questions for staff about code requirements. Is the applicant permitted to have a second sign on Katella? (Yes) Dcesn't the code also require an opaque background? (Yes) Dces the expansion require approval of a Conditional Use Permit, or at least the review of a landscaping proposal? Jim Donovan (staff): It was determined that the proposal is not significant enough to merit modification to the existing conditional use permit. The existing development is known to meet the specific development standards that pertain to car dealerships, so no modification or new C.U.P. was required. There is no requirement that is based upon the size of the car sales facility, not even a parking requirement. The landscaping theme was to be extended with development from west. The Landscape Coordinator will review the plans to ensure they are consistent with the rest of the development. Mr. Galloway: He was informed about the requirement to provide an opaque background. He will be able to comply. Jim Donovan: The applicant is actually using an existing sign that used to be located on the corner of Katella and Batavia, on the former "Datsun of Orange" used car lot. That property is currently being developed as acoin-operated self-serve car wash. Mr. Galloway noted that the existing sign is larger than the current code will allow, so the height will be reduced to less than 15 feet, to satisfy the new standard. MOTION by Erika Wolfe, to approve the proposal as submitted, with an opaque background. 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 17, 1995 Page 14 10) DRB 3065 -MARINE NATIONAL BANK 675 S. MAIN ST. Freestanding sign for an existing bank; C-2 District, Southwest R.P.A. The applicant was represented by Ed Castillo. Mr. Prothero: The proposal is rather modest. His concern is not related to the design, so much as the actual construction. Mr. Shigetomi: The building materials are not very substantial. Can't the bank owner afford to build something more than a plywood sign? Mr. Castillo: Well, it is a better quality material than construction grade plywood. M.D.O. plywood has a very fine grain veneer, and is more dense than ordinary plywood. It is also laminated with an exterior rated glue, and manufactured specifically for finer-quality work. Mr. Castillo presented a colored elevation of the sign. It would have white letters on a blue background. Mr. Prothero: How are the edges to be finished? Mr. Castillo: The two faces would be made of two different panels, which would be enclosed on all sides. Jim Donovan (star: The code limits the location of a sign near a driveway, so that the sign does not interfere with customer's visibility of the adjacent roadway. The applicant's site plan does not specify what the distance between the sign and the driveway would be. It should be no less than 15 feet. Mr. Prothero: Well, the design seems all right to me, so long as the sign is installed at the appropriate location. MOTION by Steve Prothero, to approve the proposal as submitted, subject to installation a minimum distance of 15 feet from the nearest driveway. SECOND: Erika Wolfe AYES: Steven Prothero, Beau Shigetomi & Erika Wolfe NOES: None ABSENT: Robert Hornacek MOTION CARRIED Adjournment: 7:15 P.M.