Loading...
1995-06-07 Final DRC MinutesCity of Orange Design Review Board M I N U T E S for Wednesday, June 7, 1995 Board Members Present: Board Members Absent: Robert Hornacek Steven C. Prothero, Chair Beau Shigetomi Erika Wolfe None Staff attendants: Jim Donovan, Associate Planner Barbara Gander, Associate Planner Howard Morns, Landscape Coordinator Dan Ryan, Senior Planner Historic Preservation Administrative Session - 4: 30 P.M. 1) Review minutes for May 17, 1995; presentation and background information for applications listed on this agenda. MOTION by Erika Wolfe to approve the meeting minutes as recorded SECOND: Beau Shigetomi AYES: Steven Prothero, Beau Shigetomi & Erika Wolfe NOES : None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Robert Hornacek MOTION CARRIED Regular Session - S: 00 P.M. City of Orange • Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for .Tune 7, 1995 Page 2 2) DRB 2942 - RANDALL WILSON 194 S. PINE ST. Discussion concerning use of appropriate building materials for a duplex residential project now under construction; Old Towne and R-2 (Residential Duplex) Districts. The applicant requested action to authorize a change in approved windows. Randall Wilson: The project is under construction and nearing completion. After the building permit was issued, he realized that there are numerous windows in the building; long-term maintenance (ofpreviously-permitted wood windows) is a concern. He asked the staff if he could use a vinyl product, but was informed that staff could not authorize a change in building materials... That's why we're here. Joe Sievertsen, Maestro Products, Inc.: His company manufactures an aluminum-clad wood window. It looks the same as a double-hung wood window, except that the outside has an aluminum cover. He brought an example of a wood equivalent (also made by his company) to show that there is not too much difference in the depth of the window frame and quality of the window. His company has worked with many communities where historic preservation and architectural quality are issues, and this window has been widely accepted. Mr. Hornacek asked questions about framing requirements and molding. The aluminum-clad window appears to have a thickened frame. (Agreed) Unless the edge is treated properly, the window frame would look distinctly different. Mr. Prothero: The aluminum cladding comes pre-finished? (Yes) So it needs no maintenance? (No) How is trim used to mask the edges? Mr. Sievertsen stated that solutions lie within basic carpentry skills. Either the window is recessed within the opening in the frame, so that the finish material meets the outside edge, or the appropriate molding is applied around the edge. Mr. Shigetomi: The problem (with this project) is how to build to the edge when the entire window frame extends outward one inch from the wall. The approved plan calls out overlapping wood siding. Mr. Sievertsen felt that there are many ways to resolve the problem. His company will provide specifications for window installation. If the siding cannot be built up to the edge of the brick mold, wood trim may be beveled or routed to overlap the window's edge. (Continued on the following page) City of Orange • Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for June 7, 1995 Page 3 (Continued from the previous page) Mr. Hornacek: I've never had a problem with this type of product... What is the price difference? Mr. Sievertsen: The aluminum-clad window costs about 15 percent more. Mr. Prothero agreed that it is a good product, and appropriate for the project. Ms. Wolfe asked that the minutes reflect a distinction that the window is not a typical aluminum product, but a wood material build to the proportions and configuration that satisfy the board's policy that projects must include wood windows to fulfill the Old Towne Design Standards. MOTION by Beau Shigetomi to approve the proposal as submitted, with edge molding and finish treatment to be detailed upon a plan, reviewed and approved by the Senior Planner. SECOND: Robert Hornacek AYES: Robert Hornacek, Steven Prothero, Beau Shigetomi & Erika Wolfe NOES: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED City of Orange • Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for June 7, 1995 Page 4 New Proposals - 3) DRB 3020 -TOM PROPROFSKY AND HOWARD JAMES (R. C. COLIN CO.) 261 S. OLIVE ST. Landscape and irrigation proposal for a residential project; R-4 (Residential Maximum Multiple Family) and Old Towne Districts. Plans for this proposal were not submitted in time for the board's review. Consequently, review of this item was continued without discussion. City of Orange • Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for June 7, 1995 Page S 4) DRB 3066 -INTERSTATE MATERIAL SUPPLY, INC. (WES ROSE) 1940 N. GLASSELL ST. Freestanding sign for existing industrial facility; M-2 (Industrial) District, Northwest Redevelopment Project Area. This item was presented by Allan Utter. His customers are having problems finding the business because it lacks identification. Mr. Prothero: Is there an existing sign on the building? (No) Ms. Wolfe asked if the property frontage (on Batavia Street) is shared by any other businesses behind this building, on interior lots. (Maybe so) What happens when another business wants a sign? Upon review of the city parcel maps, it was determined that the properties behind the applicant's building are considered to front upon Grove Avenue. Tim Donovan (staff) reported that it is ordinarily the burden of the land-locked parcel owners who want on-street advertising to negotiate the issue with the owner of the property at the street, rather than vice versa. Mr. Hornacek asked the property owner to provide detail about construction materials. The plans are a little vague. Is it aninternally-illuminated cabinet? Mr. Utter: No, the materials would be vinyl lettering on Plexiglas, attached to plywood and supported by our own aluminum materials Mr. Hornacek: The proposal doesn't read well. Not only does the graphic representation lack precision, but the layout (or composition) needs some consideration. The only item that reads well is the IMS logo; the lettering outlined by the map. Mr. Prothero agreed. He also has some difficulty with the address display on sign. It appears to be an afterthought. Mr. Utter: Yes, I learned it was a requirement after initial review of the sign by staff. Ms. Wolfe: Generally, the sign should be less cluttered. The message needs to be balanced. (Continued on the following page) City of Orange • Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for June 7, 1995 Page 6 (Continued from the previous page) Mr. Hornacek encouraged Mr. Utter to have the copy organized around a central image. What the board prefers to see is a hierarchy to the graphic arrangement: a title across the top; secondary copy below; the 4-digit address numerals displayed near the bottom, at the center of the sign. (He prepared a sketch as an example). Are you going to have the work done by a sign company? (Yes) Well then, they would be the better ones to put together a drawing, to make sure their product will be what you wanted. MOTION by Robert Hornacek to continue review of the proposal until a revised plan is prepared and submitted to staff. If the staff determines that the revised proposal is consistent with the board's recommendations discussed in review, the staff may authorize approval of a building permit. Mr. Hornacek directed the applicant to work with Tim Donovan or Dan Ryan. SECOND: Erika Wolfe AYES: Steven Prothero, Robert Hornacek, Beau Shigetomi & Erika Wolfe NOES: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED City of Orange • Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for June 7, 1995 Page 7 S) DRB 3067 -RAE REICH 349 N. PINE ST. Room addition to a single family residence; R-l, Old Towne Districts. The homeowner was present to discuss her own proposal. Mr. Prothero asked the applicant to make a presentation. Ms. Reich stated that the proposal adds about 230 square feet to the existing 900-square-foot residence. She and a friend have worked with Dan Ryan (staff), and revised the plans according to his advice. Mr. Prothero and Ms. Wolfe had some questions about parking requirements. There is no garage on site at the moment. When is the applicant required to satisfy a parking requirement? Jim Donovan (staff) replied that a garage is not required unless the floor area of a single family residence is increased by 25 percent, or more. Ms. Wolfe noted that this is a rather small residence. By the applicant's own description, it appears that the building is being enlarged to an extent that the staff should look to the parking requirements. Discussion ensued about how one should estimate the size of the addition. While the planning staff indicated that such evaluations are based upon floor area, Ms. Reich said that she was following the Building Division staffs advice that size is determined by roof area. Dan Ryan: What is most important in light of the Old Towne Design Standards is that the addition is planned at the front of the building, so the entire facade of the building is affected. The board reviewed photographs of the existing development. It is substantially obscured by trees and a hedge across the front of the property. The residential property also contains a kiln and an accessory storage building to one side of the residence, in a large side yard. Mr. Prothero asked several questions about the roof design, layout of existing development on the site, and different structural elements. He was not sure that the design is very successful. It is a Craftsman style bungalow, and there is some rather thickly-dimensioned lumber proposed across the front of the building. Side elevations indicate a roof element that looks like the cover of a front porch, but there is no landing or columns detailed. He would like to see the residence include a front porch. (Continued on the following page) City of Orange • Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for June 7, 1995 Page 8 (Continued from the previous page) Ms. Reich indicated that she would like to have a front porch. She hoped to add one at a later date, but excluded it from this project because she did not want to be penalized with additional roof area that would trigger the parking requirement. The staff replied that there would be no parking requirement based upon the size of a porch. Ms. Reich said that she would add columns to create a porch at the front of the building. Mr. Prothero added that questions remain about the overall composition, integration of roof planes, the roof design. Part of the structure is covered by a hipped roof. He has concerns about the broad fascia proposed along the eaveline. He suggested that the fascia be removed and rafter tails remain exposed. Ms. Reich also asked whether she could build a carport to satisfy parking requirements? Jim Donovan replied that a carport will not satisfy the requirement that parking space be provided in an enclosed garage. However, there is no garage required unless her addition were to exceed the 25 percent threshold that is established by code. Mr. Prothero said that he would rather limit the review to the proposal before them at this time. Plans for the carport maybe submitted later. Color samples were also submitted with the application. Ms. Wolfe expressed a concern about the vivid contrast between red, black and ochre trim, with gray as the predominant building color. At the very least, the color red should be muted to a rust or burgundy tone. MOTION by Robert Hornacek to approve the proposal subject to the addition of columns at the front of the porch, elimination of the fascia along the eaveline to leave exposed rafter tails, and a change in the selection of the color red. Revisions to plans will be approved by the Senior Planner. SECOND: Beau Shigetomi AYES: Steven Prothero, Robert Hornacek, Beau Shigetomi & Erika Wolfe NOES: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED Ciry of Orange • Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for June 7, 1995 Page 9 6) DRB 3068 -PLANET KIDS 1536 E. KATELLA AVE. (AT TUSTIN SWC) Recommendation concerning facade renovation and signs; C-TR (Limited Business) District, Tustin Street R.P.A. The Planning Commission will consider this item at a later date (approval of a variance application and a conditional use permit is required). The applicant was represented by Larry Lazar and John Killen. Mr. Lazar explained the use and operation of the planned facility. It is an indoor educational and recreational use for children. He introduced John Killen, architect. They submitted three alternative design schemes for the outside of the building, and also provided a diagrammed floor plan, a brochure about an existing facility in Laguna Hills and a site plan to show the orientation of the building to the rest of development. It is located toward the rear of the property, and they are looking for identification that will make the building more prominent. At this point, they are treating the design on a conceptual level, and would like to know what the board thinks of these options. Mr. Killen gave a brief description of modifications that would be necessary for the building. One option is to construct a high parapet around the edge of the building. The other two options build upon a broad, low-lying dormer that exists along the center of the roof. Although changes to the building would be substantial, the project would not detract from the surrounding character of development. There's a mixture of architecture on all four corners. Mr. Lazar also suggested that the project would be beneficial with respect to economic development. This type of business can serve as either a destination or a support service. Experience in Laguna Hills (and among similar businesses) leads him to conclude that interest in the facility draws other businesses that complement the use. Mr. Hornacek did not agree with Mr. Killen's observation that surrounding architecture is mixed. There is a theme that is not only established within the center, but also applied on the opposite (southeast) corner, at Pier 1 Imports, as well as the adjacent Village Walk center. There's an established order to the building, not one that is necessarily very good; not one that he is enthusiastic about, but one that we need to live with. He would like to see the basic integrity of the building maintained. (Continued on the following page) City of Orange • Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for June 7, 1995 Page 10 (Continued from the previous page) Rather than apply color fields and graphics to the walls of the building, he would rather see the signs limited to specific locations. One would be the main sign on the vertical surface that extends across the middle section of the building. Secondary signs (or decorative panels) might be applied to the vertical surfaces at either end of the building. Additionally, signs might be installed as panels affixed to the block wall, adjacent to the walkway along the front and sides of the building. At that location, the applicant might even provide downlighting for nighttime illumination. Mr. Prothero concurred. He is reluctant to recommend approval of the proposal because of a conflict with existing finish materials. Split-faced concrete block walls cannot be painted. These walls would need to be resurfaced with something to provide a smooth surface for paint. Beyond that issue, the building materials are as much a part of the unifying theme of development as the minimalist architecture. He would rather see embellishment of the sign at the central location over the building's entry. As an alternative, perhaps the applicant can extend the supporting structure vertically, rather than horizontally. Mr. Hornacek expressed an appreciation for the applicant's logo. He suggested that the sign could be designed as athree-dimensional icon. Mr. Shigetomi: The concept is fine, but we should be careful that whatever gets approved sets no precedent as a roof sign. The board generally requires that any sign that is installed about an eaveline be attached to vertical surface on a dormer or a building parapet. This proposal is pushed away from the existing vertical surface so that the image blends into the roof material. Mr. Lazar: At this point, the applicant seeks only preliminary feedback. Their planning commission hearing is months away, and an application is not yet filed. What seems most apparent is that the board would like to keep the "bookends" preserved as part of the roofline, rather than to have the entire roof hidden behind a new parapet wall. He will work with Mr. Killen and the Planet Kids designer on a revised plan, and submit them for review at a later date. MOTION by Erika Wolfe to continue discussion of the proposal until revised plans are submitted and scheduled for review at a later date. SECOND: Robert Hornacek AYES: Steven Prothero, Robert Hornacek, Beau Shigetomi & Erika Wolfe NOES: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED City of Orange • Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for .Tune 7, 1995 Page 11 7) DRB 3069 -ROBERT SETTEN, SR. 282 N. MAGNOLIA ST. Recommendation concerning the design of an existing detached two-story structure, proposed as an accessory second unit; R-1 District. The Planning Commission will consider this item on July 3, 1995 (C.U.P: 2114). The applicant was represented by Mr. Setten, and Tom Tracy and Larry Lane, architects. Tim Donovan (staff reported that this application is unusual in that the building already exists. The structure was originally permitted as an accessory building in asingle-family residential zone. Under the city's zoning ordinance, there is a provision that may allow Mr. Setten to convert the building to an "accessory second unit," which is essentially an apartment. The project requires approval of a conditional use permit, upon review by the Planning Commission and a final determination by City Council. The D.R.B. will therefore make only a recommendation. The city's accessory second unit ordinance requires the Design Review Board to make a finding as to whether the proposal is (or is not) compatible with the design of the primary residential building. Photographs of existing development were submitted with the application. Barbara Gander (staff) was present to detail the extent of modifications that are planned for the building. Basically, the applicant is trying to make the building small enough to qualify as an accessory second unit. At this point, it is substantially larger than the R-1 standards allow. Mr. Shigetomi expressed some discomfort with the limited number of pictures of the main residence. Most photographs are of the accessory building. It is difficult to determine compatibility when the information is so limited. Ms. Wolfe expressed a concern about the bulk and mass of the accessory structure. She noted that the existing residence is a single-story structure. Mr. Hornacek asked the applicants to verify which building components would be removed, and what would remain. He noted that the photographs indicate that at least the building materials are compatible. He felt there was not much that can be done to improve upon the architect's proposal. Mr. Prothero agreed, noting that colored elevations do not match the dark wood color shown in the photographs, but indicate a lighter color. Will the two buildings ultimately be painted the same colors? (Yes) He might have recommended substantial changes to the design, before knowing that the building was already there. (Continued on the following page) City of Orange • Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for June 7, 1995 Page 12 (Continued from the previous page) MOTION by Robert Hornacek to recommend approval of the proposal as submitted, finding that the existing accessory structure would be modified to become more compatible with the primary residence. Final landscape and imgation plans should be prepared and submitted for review and approval by D.R.B. SECOND: Steven Prothero AYES: Steven Prothero, Robert Hornacek, & Beau Shigetomi NO: Erika Wolfe MOTION CARRIED Staff Recommendations & Requirements - Preliminary landscape plan does not comply with adopted Landscape Standards and Specifications. Submit plans to D.R.B. Provide city street tree: Species: Pistacia Chinensis, Chinese Pistache Size: 15 gallon, minimum Staking: One 3-inch lodge pole, with 2 corded tire ties (3-inch lodge pole will be provided by city at $10.00 each) Root barrier: Deep Root Corp. Adjournment: 7:00 P.M.