1995-07-19 Final DRC MinutesCity of Orange
Design Review Board
M I N U T E S
Wednesday, July 19, 1995
Board Members Present: Steven G. McHarris
Steven C. Prothero
Beau Shigetomi
Board Members Absent: Robert Hornacek
Erika Wolfe
Staff Attendants: Jim Donovan, Associate Planner
Barbara Gander, Associate Planner
Howard Moms, Landscape Coordinator
Dan Ryan, Senior Planner
Administrative Session - 4: 30 P.M.
1) Review minutes of July 5, 1995 meeting; and background information for applications listed on
this agenda.
Mr. McHarris recalled that the board wanted to see an architectural detail for block walls related to
construction of the parking facility at Chapman University.
MOTION by Steve McHarris to approve the minutes with a correction to item No. 5: revised plans will
include details for block walls that are proposed or required as part of the project.
SECOND: Beau Shigetomi
AYES: Steve McHarris & Beau Shigetomi
NOES: None
ABSENT: Robert Hornacek & Erika Wolfe
ABSTAIN: Steve Prothero
MOTION CARRIED
Regular Session - 5: 00 P.M.
City of Orange • Design Review Board
Meeting Minutes for July 19, 1995
Page 2
2) DRB 3069 -ROBERT SETTEN, SR. 282 N. MAGNOLIA STREET
Recommendation concerning planned modifications to a detached 2 story structure,
proposed as a conversion to an accessory second dwelling unit.
This item was introduced by Barbara Gander (staff). She explained the disposition of recent planning
commission review, including neighborhood concerns about architectural bulk and mass, lack of privacy in
surrounding yards. The planning commission has recommended that the architect reduce the extent of the
building's northern eave overhang to resolve a drainage problem, and eliminate a portion of the roof over
the upstairs patio.
Larry Lane, Tom Tracy (Architects) and Robert Setten were present for discussion. Mr. Tracy explained
revisions to plans. In an effort to reduce mass, side walls were removed from the upstairs patio area. He
estimates that the roof area can be reduced by 25 percent if the eave overhang is reduced on all sides of the
building. One of the commission's recommendations they were reluctant to implement is the removal of the
roof from the patio area. They feel that the resident would gain much more enjoyment of the patio area
during summer months if the roof remains intact.
Mr. Shigetomi did not believe it was a good idea to trim the eaveline around all sides of the building; along
the north side is okay. The eave overhang is perhaps the only distinguishing characteristic of the
architecture. If roof area must be eliminated, perhaps it would be better to focus on the patio area. The
resident can always enjoy the patio area with a barbecue, an umbrella, patio chairs, etc.
Mr. Prothero agreed. Building code may require that the eaveline be pulled back from the northern
property line, but he questions the need to reduce the overhang on the other three sides of the building. A
comparison between the architect's original and revised elevations indicates that the building looks better
with the greater eave overhang. Furthermore, he doesn't think it should be necessary to take the roof off of
the patio. It will reduce the roof area, but it does little to help reduce architectural bulk and nothing to
resolve the neighborhood concerns about privacy. He has a problem with imposing new conditions
(through the design review process) in the sense that the board has already made its recommendation, and is
not in a position to determine whether the architect's proposal satisfies the planning commission's concerns.
The staff was asked to clarify the focus of this review.
Tim Donovan (staff): The planning commission did not specifically remand this item to D.R.B. It was
continued to allow modifications to the architectural proposal. Revisions make the proposal substantially
different than when it was last reviewed by D.R.B. Orange Municipal Code requires that accessory second
units be architecturally compatible with the primary residence in the use of "materials, colors and design
features." The staff felt that the process of review requires input by the D.R.B.
(Continued on the following page)
City of Orange • Design Review Board
Meeting Minutes for July 19, 1995
Page 3
(Continued from the previous page)
Mr. McHarris: The architect might also consider more attention to the southeast corner of the building.
The walls seem rather plain to him, and this is perhaps the most visible part of the building, when the view
from the street is considered. Landscaping would do much to soften the appearance of the building. He
recommended that if there is no architectural relief planned, the applicant should add a planter at the front
southeast corner of the building.
MOTION by Beau Shigetomi to recommend that architectural conditions include modifications to the cave
overhang only with respect to property line requirements, removal of the roof over the upstairs patio area,
the addition of a planter at the southeast corner of the building, and ultimately, submittal of landscaping
plans to include an automatic irrigation system plan. If the roof is to be removed from the upstairs patio
area, the screen wall should be cut down to a height of 6 feet, maximum.
SECOND: Steve McHarris
AYES: Steve McHarris & Beau Shigetomi
N0: Steve Prothero
ABSENT: Robert Hornacek & Erika Wolfe
MOTION CARRIED
Staff Recommendations &Requirements:
Pursuant to Orange Municipal Code and D.R.B. minutes from June 7, 1995, prepare and submit final
landscape and irrigation plans for review and approval by Design Review Board. Landscape and irrigation
plans shall comply with city's Landscape Standards and Specifications.
Provide city street tree:
Species: Pistacia chinensis, Chinese Pistache
Size: 15 gallon, standard
Staking: One 3-inch lodge pole, with 2 corded tire ties
(3-inch lodge pole will be provided by the city at $10.00 each)
Root barrier: Deep Root Corp.
City of Orange • Design Review Board
Meeting Minutes for July 19, 1995
Page 4
Final Items -
3) DRB 3061 • TRADER JOE'S 8 SAV-ON (CHARLES KOBER ASSOCIATES)
N.W.C. TUSTIN ST. 8 MEATS AVE (MALL OF ORANGE)
Review of final landscape and irrigation plans for new retail buildings; C-TR (Limited
Business) District, Tustin Street Redevelopment Project Area.
The applicants had no representative present.
Howard Morris (star:
Recommendations & Requirements:
Provide inspection notes on landscape and irrigation plans.
Change Toro 570-4P series sprinklers to 6-inch pop-up heads on the irrigation plan.
REVIEW OF THIS ITEM CONTINUED UNTIL AUGUST 9, 1995.
Continued Items -
City of Orange • Design Review Board
Meeting Minutes for July 19, 1995
Page S
4) DRB 3068 • PLANET KIDS • 1536 E. KATELLA AVE. (SWC AT TUSTIN ST.)
Recommendation concerning facade renovation and signs; C-TR (Limited Business)
District, Tustin Street R.P.A.
The applicant was represented by Larry Lazar. He introduced Amy Swift, the project coordinator for
Planet Kids. They have a planning commission hearing scheduled for August 7. Mr. Lazar discussed
modifications to plans that address comments about secondary display panels on either end of the building.
He also showed an elevation of the building to remind board members how the primary sign would look, as
a reminder.
Mr. Shigetomi: The display area appears to be much bigger than what would normally be permitted for a
commercial wall sign. He is concerned about what he perceives as an excessive amount of display area.
Mr. Prothero: It appears that the applicants still haven't got a specific design in mind for display panels at
either end of the building. He questions the need for added display area if these signs are merely
ornamental. So the mauve trim would be affixed to a new surface, furred out from the wall? (Yes.) As the
board stated earlier, the architecture may not be much to speak of, but there is a unified theme throughout
this development. He still has a concern about the extent of these alterations and their incompatibility with
other buildings in the center.
If the designer cannot provide something of less impact to the shopping center, perhaps it would
better to eliminate proposed signs from the two vertical surfaces at each end of this building (or
"bookends"). The shape of the proposed panels don't fit the space so well. He suggested the designer
consider smaller display panels, or a different shape. He and Mr. Lazar also discussed the possibility of
installing a sign on a corresponding wall around the corner, on the east elevation.
If any change is made to affect the color scheme of the buildings, he would think that the very least
one might expect is that the blue trim band at top of the parapet should be held back to the same dimension
as what exists within the center (at approximately 6 inches or less), and that the yellow trim band along the
lower edge of that same surface be of a muted color.
Mr. Shigetomi and Mr. McHams agreed.
Mr. Prothero: Is anyone willing to make a motion?
MOTION by Beau Shigetomi, that if the planning commission finds that the variance request should be
approved, approval of building elevations be subject to conditions that will help maintain the architectural
integrity of the development. The board recommends:
(Continued on the following page)
City of Orange • Design Review Board
Meeting Minutes for July 19, 1995
Page 6
(Continued from the previous page)
(A) Only one wall sign should be permitted above the building's roofline, where the
opportunity exists on a dormer above the central entrance to the building. Signs proposed
on the vertical surfaces at each end of the building, to either side of the sloped roof, are not
acceptable as proposed.
(B) As indicated upon prior review, the architectural color scheme and finish materials should
remain consistent with what is presently existing, to match the building materials that are
in common use throughout the shopping center.
Alternately, any change to existing trim colors should be limited to match the width of
existing architectural trim along the top of walls at the front elevation. It is further
recommended that the yellow band (to be fabricated from sheet metal and installed along
the top of pilasters in front of the building) be painted a softer (less intense) hue of yellow.
SECOND: Steve McHarris
AYES: Steve McHarris, Steve Prothero & Beau Shigetomi
NOES: None
ABSENT: Robert Hornacek & Erika Wolfe
MOTION CARRIED
City of Orange • Design Review Board
Meeting Minutes for July 19, 1995
Page 7
5) DRB 3079 • FRED NANKANI & WARD M/KKELSEN (FOREST SUCHEI~
128 E. KATELLA AVE.
Wall signs proposed as a sign program for a commercial office building; C-P
(Commercial-Professional) District.
Mr. Suchey: Plans have been revised according to discussion last July 5. The display area was simplified
to have only 2 lines of text. The overall height of the sign is now limited to 24 inches.
Mr. Prothero had a question about the proposal. What will keep the number of tenants, if it increases to 6,
for example, from adding another 4 signs?
Jim Donovan (staff): As a sign program, the applicant's plans indicate the maximum number of signs that
would be permitted on the building. The property owner cannot install new signs without a permit. The
staff will have this application as a record of what was proposed and accepted through the sign program.
Mr. Shigetomi: There should be a little more space along the top and bottom edges of the sign. Otherwise,
the text would nearly fill the entire cabinet. He felt that the size of the lettering should be further reduced,
or the two rows moved closer together. As an alternative, the height of the phone number may be reduced.
Whatever is done, there should be a buffer of 3 inches (minimum) between the text and the edges of the
cabinet sign. Is there a design for the other sign?
Mr. Suchey: Not at this time. The other tenant is an optometrist. If he wants to a new sign, the intent is
that he should match this sign.
Mr. Prothero:...And his sign would also be limited to 2 lines, same colors, the same letter style?
Mr. Suchey: Yes... Although this proposal was discussed with his client, he may not like the plan when he
actually sees how small the letters will be. Knowing that the sign code allows greater height for individual
letters, he may propose (to the client) as an alternative, such anon-illuminated design (with foam letters).
Is that possible?
Mr. Prothero: I would be reluctant to extent tentative approval, without seeing the design.
MOTION by Beau Shigetomi to approve the cabinet sign if lettering within the plastic face panel is
buffered a minimum distance of 3 inches from each edge. Any proposal for individual foam or channel
letters would have to be drafted and submitted for review and approval by D.R.B.
SECOND: Steven Prothero
AYES: Steve McHarris, Steve Prothero & Beau Shigetomi
NOES: None
ABSENT: Robert Hornacek & Erika Wolfe
MOTION CARRIED
City of Orange • Design Review Board
Meeting Minutes for July 19, 1995
Page 8
6) DRB 3080 • TRACT 14061 (B-D CORP.) • BRANDYW/NE DEVELOPMENT CO.
WESTERN TERMINUS OF MOUNTAIN AVE., NORTH SIDE OF SANTIAGO CREEK
Building elevations and landscaping plan for an approved residential subdivision; R-1
(Single Family Residential) District.
Jim Donovan (staff reported that a "fax" transmittal was received earlier today, indicating that the
applicant is unable to attend this evening's meeting.
Howard Morris (staff:
Recommendations & Requirements:
Final landscape and irrigation plans must be prepared and submitted for review by D.R.B.
Potentilla Verna, Spring cinquefoil, groundcover is not compatible with other native plant
material (Ceanothus, Cistus, Rosmarinus) on the plant legend. Potentilla requires regular
to moderate irrigation, which may cause the other plants to die from over-watering.
Construct equestrian trail on trail easement along southerly boundary, per city Master Plan
of Recreation Trail Requirements.
Mr. Prothero indicated that they will have to discuss these and other issues with the applicant, when a
representative is present.
REVIEW OF THIS ITEM CONTINUED UNTIL AUGUST 9, 1995.
City of Orange • Design Review Board
Meeting Minutes for July 19, 1995
Page 9
New Proposals -
7) DRB 3081 • UNOCAL • 2345 WEST CHAPMAN AVENUE (NEC AT BITTERBUSH ST.)
Wall signs for an existing automotive service station; C-2, or Limited Business District,
Southwest R.P.A.
This item will be revised by the applicant, and was withdrawn from this agenda.
REVIEW OF THIS ITEM CONTINUED UNTIL A REVISED
PROPOSAL IS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT.
City of Orange • Design Review Board
Meeting Minutes for July 19, 1995
Page 10
8) DRB 3082 • FOREST CITY DEVELOPMENT • THOMAS P. COX, ARCHITECT
WEST SIDE OF PROSPECT ST. ALONG VINE AVE., MAPLE AVE. AND KATHLEEN LN.
Proposed renovation of a 260 dwelling unit apartment complex; R-3, or Multi-Family
Residential District.
The applicant was represented by David Sheegog, Architect. He explained that the project is somewhat
limited in scope. No work will be done to affect the structural integrity of any building, because the new
building codes would be applied in review. If the structure is not disturbed, there will be no need to justify
structural integrity. To supplement the three-page plan that was submitted for the board member's review,
Mr. Sheegog brought many colored renderings to illustrate improvements proposed for the property.
Mr. McHarris expressed appreciation for the project, most notably the landscape enhanced courtyard
proposals in between buildings. But what will happen along the McPherson and Spring Street edges of the
site? Will there be a block wall adjacent to the street? He would like to see some landscaping around the
perimeter, such as recent developments in eastern Orange. If new walls will be constructed as part of the
project, he would like to see them set back from the property lines so that some landscaping can be planted.
Jim Donovan (staff): It is somewhat difficult to retrofit existing developments with added landscaping. The
applicant is required to provide a consistent width of 25 feet for access to the carports that are located
around the perimeter of the property. At this point, it is difficult to say whether the walls could be
repositioned without compromising other standards, although there may be room to add vine pockets along
the foundation.
With respect to Spring Street, the existing public right of way will probably be abandoned when
the roadway is realigned to cross Santiago Creek, and connect Walnut Avenue. The existing segment
(adjacent to the project site, north side) was built primarily to provide access to the city's resource center on
McPherson. The future alignment of Spring Street will probably be negotiated with Beazer, the adjacent
property owner, when the "Rock Creek Ranch" development continues this way.
Mr. Shigetomi: Landscaping plans will have to include more trees along the Prospect Street frontage.
Mr. Sheegog asked whether landscape plans would have to be submitted. There is an existing irrigation
system that is in need of repair, but the applicant does not intend to make substantial changes to affect the
existing landscape.
Mr. McHarris pointed out that substantial changes are planned for interior courtyards. Those areas will
certainly have to be detailed. Perhaps there is no need to detail the entire site.
(Continued on the following page)
City of Orange • Design Review Board
Meeting Minutes for July 19, 1995
Page I1
(Continued from the previous page)
Mr. Shigetomi agreed. Trees along Prospect Street may be added simply as a condition of approval.
Planting details may be coordinated with Howard Moms (Community Services staff).
Mr. Prothero expressed concern that these are pretty simple elevations for so monumental a project.
Construction details were discussed with Mr. Sheegog. Architectural embellishments would be designed to
qualify as separate structures. Modifications to end walls of each apartment building would be
accomplished by attaching a new wood frame to existing lumber within the external walls. The dual
thickness would provide an opportunity to include architectural relief, such as false window openings
approximately 4 inches deep. Mr. Sheegog explained that much about the structural integrity of each
building remains unknown, but the applicant is committed to the project and is willing to purchase these
buildings "as is." More will become known as work progresses. Mr. Prothero would like to see windows
added to the outside walls, if possible. The architect agreed to investigate the structural requirements.
Mr. Prothero: Where is this application headed next? Is the board to make a recommendation, or a final
determination on this application?
Tim Donovan: There is no planning authorization required before the Building Division's review, except
Design Review Board approval. However, the redevelopment agency will participate in the project, and the
city council -acting as the redevelopment agency- will consider the project next week (on July 25). Since
the outcome of this review might affect the costs, which may in turn affect the agency's participation, the
board is asked to make a recommendation upon the project.
The applicant will have to prepare a more thoroughly detailed plan for the building permits. If the
board is willing to act on these plans as a preliminary submittal, a final review may be required. It was
explained to Mr. Sheegog that he would only need to submit the final site plan and building elevations. Full
sets of construction drawings (e.g., foundation details, structural calculations) would not be necessary.
MOTION by Steven Prothero to recommend approval of the project subject to the following conditions:
(A) Trees will be added in front yards along Prospect Street. The applicant will submit a
planting plan that includes a survey of existing trees at this location, or coordinate the
number and spacing with staff.
(B) Imgation plans shall be prepared and submitted for any newly landscaped areas, including
residential courtyards.
(Continued on the following page)
City of Orange • Design Review Board
Meeting Minutes for July 19, 1995
Page 12
(Continued from the previous page)
(C) If block walls are to be constructed or rebuilt as part of the project, they should be stepped
back from the property line to provide an opportunity for landscaping. Alternatively, if
block walls cannot be relocated, vine pockets should be cut into pavement along the base
of perimeter block walls. Holes should then be bored into the walls at regular intervals, so
that vines maybe through, and trained to grow upon the exterior face of perimeter walls.
(D) Construction drawings for ail structural improvements will be submitted for review and
approval by D.R.B., when final plans are complete.
(E) Structural investigations will be made by the project architect (or designee) to determine
whether any windows may be added, where building elevations presently contain none.
SECOND: Beau Shigetomi
AYES: Steve McHams, Steve Prothero & Beau Shigetomi
NOES: None
ABSENT: Robert Hornacek & Erika Wolfe
MOTION CARRIED
Adjournment: 6:45 P.M.