Loading...
1995-08-23 Final DRC MinutesCity of Orange Design Review Board M I N U T E S for Wednesday, August 23, 1995 Board Members Present: Board Members Absent: Staff in Attendance: Steven McHarris Steven Prothero Erika Wolfe Robert Hornacek Beau Shigetomi Jim Donovan, Associate Planner & Secretary Howard Morris, Landscape Coordinator The board met for an administrative session beginning at 4:30 P.M. This meeting adjourned at approximately 7:15 P.M. Regular Session - 5: DO P.M. Concerning the meeting minutes for August 23, 1995: Mr. Prothero (Chair) said he would have one revision before a motion should be made to approve the minutes. Regarding Tract Map 14061 by Brandywine Development (D.R.B. No. 3080, Item No. 3): There was discussion about brick pilasters proposed within a perimeter fence, and about the finish material for the retaining wall. The fourth condition should require that the facing material on each of the pilasters will go all the way down to the ground. Mr. McHams: With regard to the porch addition proposed by Mr. Robert Johnson (D.R.B. No. 3085, Item No. 6): In discussion, Mr. Johnson volunteered that he would like to use "river rock" along the foundation. The motion should reflect use of river rock as condition of approval. MOTION by Erika Wolfe to approve the minutes with revisions based upon the content of discussion. SECOND: Steve McHams AYES: Steve McHarris, Steve Prothero & Erika. Wolfe NOES: None ABSENT: Robert Hornacek & Beau Shigetomi MOTION CARRIED City of Orange • Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for August 23, 1995 Page 2 Regular Session -Consent Calendar Mr. Prothero (Chair) asked board members whether any applications were adequately prepared and required no further presentation from the applicants? If there were no questions for those applications, he would entertain a motion for project approval. Mr. McHarris noted that the applicant for "P.J.'s Abbey" (D.R.B. No. 3027, Item No. 4 on this agenda) commissioned an independent evaluation of the historic building. In view of that report, the change in siding seems appropriate to him. Mr. Prothero: His only concern is that a horizontal proportion for the gable vent was appropriate with originally-proposed horizontal siding. Now that the siding will have a vertical orientation, he would rather see the proportions changed accordingly. Charles Ramm was present, and agreed that the vent could be "customized" to suit the architecture. MOTION by Erika Wolfe, to approve the proposal subject to revisions that will lessen the width, and increase the height, of the gable vent on the north elevation of the kitchen. The new design will be reviewed and approved by the Senior Planner, Historic Preservation. SECOND: Steve Prothero AYES: Steve McHarris, Steve Prothero & Erika Wolfe NOES: None ABSENT: Robert Hornacek & Beau Shigetomi MOTION CARRIED Mr. McHarris: Regarding the porch addition for St. John's Lutheran Church (D.R.B. No. 3088, Item No. 5 on this agenda), he considered this proposal to be an appropriate addition for the building. His only concern is to clarify the proposed color scheme. The addition might look too busy if the trim is painted a different color. He suggested that the proposal be approved, so long as the applicant is willing to keep the siding all one color, to match the house. Sylvia Gaard was present to discuss this application. Slie agreed that the siding would be painted to match the color of the existing residential building (tan). MOTION by Steve McHarris, to approve the proposal subject to one condition: that the exterior colors for the siding match that of the existing residence. SECOND: Erika Wolfe AYES: Steve McHams, Steve Prothero & Erika Wolfe NOES: None ABSENT: Robert Hornacek & Beau Shigetomi MOTION CARRIED City of Orange • Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for August 23, 1995 Page 3 (Item No. 1) DRB No. 2824 Tract 1401 1 Landscape and irrigation plan for residential tract, with 81ots Canyon View Ave. east of Old Single Family Residential District (Rl-6) Chapman Ave., south of Mills Dr. Kingston Group, L.P. Mr. Prothero had a question about the grading plans. There was none made available for review. How will the walls, sloped areas, and building pads be integrated ? The applicant was represented by Jay Samuels. He explained that the concrete block wall would serve as a sound barrier. It would be located at the top of a slope, along the same level as each building pad. The building pads are stepped from a high elevation on the east, to a low elevation west. The landscaping plan addresses only that area between the wall and the arterial street, which is shaped by the creation of each residential building pad. Howard Moms (staff): Inspection notes will have to be changed on these plans. There is a new phone number. MOTION by Erika. Wolfe, to approve the proposal as submitted. SECOND: Steve McHarris AYES: Steve McHarris, Steve Prothero & Erika Wolfe NOES: None ABSENT: Robert Hornacek & Beau Shigetomi MOTION CARRIED City of Orange • Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for August 23, 1995 Page 4 (Item No. 2) DRB No. 2944 Fairway Ventures Revised elevations for senior housing project (50 units) 1800 E. LaVeta Ave. Multiple Family Residential District (R-3) Steven W. Wraight 8~ Associates (Discussion continued from August 9, 1995) Gary Collins, Architect, made a presentation concerning the modified proposal. He presented a second elevation that was colored with pencils (rather than ink), producing a more accurate representation of proposed architectural colors. This drawing was also shaded at a different angle, with shadows cast to bring out more of the contrast that was missing from the last presentation. Architectural modifications were limited to making adjustments that vary the height of parapet walls, which include screening for rooftop equipment. Ms. Wolfe appreciated the extra illustrative work. It does much to explain the detail that is not visible from one presentation. Mr. Prothero agreed. He felt that the adjustments to the parapets satisfied concerns expressed at the previous meeting. Misters Prothero and Collins also discussed elevations from other angles. Some elevations are no so visible from adjacent properties, because of existing development on the R.I.O. site. Howard Morns (staff) reminded Mr. Collins that a landscape and irrigation plan will have to be prepared and submitted to the D.R.B. Mr. Collins indicated that such a plan would be forthcoming. MOTION by Erika Wolfe, to approve the proposal, as revised and submitted this evening. SECOND: Steve Prothero AYES: Steve McHarris, Steve Prothero & Erika. Wolfe NOES: None ABSENT: Robert Hornacek & Beau Shigetomi MOTION CARRIED City of Orange • Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for August 23, 1995 Page S (Item No. 3) DRB No. 2966 I.C.I. Development Co. Tenant wall sign program for a commercial center 133-155 Yorba St. Limited Business District (C-1) 2512-2702 E. Chapman Ave. Signage Solutions The applicant was represented by Curt Joyner, Project Director, I.C.I. Development Corporation. Mr. Prothero had questions about the locations of freestanding signs on the property. The site plan lacks the detail of a full-scale drawing. As he recalled from prior review, the signs were to be placed within the landscape in a manner that would establish a sculptural relationship. My. Joyner: Actually, the sign design or locations have not been significantly changed from that original presentation. The primary difference lies only in the display area, as the major tenant's sign will change. Ms. Wolfe had a question about the tall (existing) Lucky sign. It does not conform to city standards, and therefore cannot be changed. The plan provides no indication of what will become of it. Mr. Joyner said that the sign would be removed. Ms. Wolfe: The size of tenant wall signs is rather extensive. There appears to be a problem in that each sign would be larger than what is permitted by code. The width of these signs will have to be limited to 50 percent, at a height of 24 inches. Mr. Joyner: Is that something that can be appealed ? Jim Donovan (staff) explained that the board cannot grant more display area than what is permitted by code. Each tenant sign will be reviewed on the basis of an individual permit. What is most important is that the aggregate display area does not exceed the maximum area permitted by the code. The board has a policy that a sign does not exceed 60 percent of the width of any tenant space, to avoid clutter. Mr. Joyner compared the proposal to existing cabinet signs, noting that the white lettering is very difficult to read on a gray background. Channel letters will give individual tenants much better visibility. MOTION by Erika Wolfe to approve the proposed sign program, so long as individual tenant signs are limited to a maximum display area of one square foot per linear foot of building frontage, and no more than 60 percent of any tenant space. The existing freestanding sign will be removed, as part of the project. SECOND: Steve McHarris AYES: Steve McHarris, Steve Prothero & Erika Wolfe NOES: None ABSENT: Robert Hornacek & Beau Shigetomi MOTION CARRIED Mr. Prothero also suggests that the staff consider the landscape plan as a requirement with any future proposals for signs. How the sign relates to the landscape is part of the architecture. City of Orange • Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for August 23, 1995 Page 6 (Item No. 6) DRB No. 3090 I.C.I. Development Co. Facade remodel for a commercial center 121 1-1233 N. Tustin St. Limited Business District (C-TR) EHL Architecture & Planning Tustin Street Redevelopment Project Area T'he applicant was represented by Jim Osea, Architect, and Curt Joyner, Project Director for I.C.I. Development Corporation. Mr. Joyner explained that LC.I. only recently acquired the shopping center. In proposing this renovation, they are trying to integrate the architecture with that of an adjacent property, which is also owned and was recently renovated by I.C.I. Mr. Prothero noted that they are also changing the circulation pattern in the parking area. (That's correct) He had a question about modifications that would replace an existing planter at the northwest corner of the building. The benefit is obvious: the ramp would provide access to the adjacent property. However, there would be no landscaped area remaining. There is enough room to provide access and reserve some of the space for landscaping. Misters Joyner and Osea agreed to keep some of this area reserved as a planter. The sidewalk will be limited to a maximum width of 48 inches. Mr. Prothero also expressed concern about rooftop equipment. On the adjacent parcel, no attempt was made to screen air conditioner units atop the building. They discussed requirements for this project. Units would be smaller because the tenant spaces are smaller, and the parapet wall that is proposed would provide more screening than what currently exists. Mr. Prothero added that landscape and sign submittals will be required, as part of this project. Mr. Joyner questioned whether a landscape plan was really necessary. Jim Donovan (staff) affirmed that any modifications, expansions or reconfiguration of landscaped areas will require review of a plan. MOTION by Steve Prothero to approve the building elevations as submitted. However, landscape and irrigation plans must be prepared and submitted for review and approval, prior to issuance of a building permit. A tenant sign program shall also be prepared and submitted. SECOND: Erika Wolfe AYES: Steve McHarris, Steve Prothero & Erika Wolfe NOES: None ABSENT: Robert Hornacek & Beau Shigetomi MOTION CARRIED City of Orange • Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for August 23, 1995 Page 7 (Item No. 7) DRB No. 3091 Recommendation to Planning Commission Primary Care Doctors of Conversion of a public utility building to a medical office - California elevations and signage. 845 E. Chapman Ave. Office Professional District (O-P) (118 N. Cambridge St.) Old Towne District DeRevere & Associates The applicant was represented by Del DeRevere and Peter Moms (Architects), Randy Gates (Contractor), and George Adams (Superior Electrical Advertising). Mr. Prothero asked to review photographs of the building. There were none available. Mr. DeRevere explained that planned modifications are somewhat minimal. He pointed to the windows that would be added, and a new steel canopy to identify the entrance of the building. Other changes would be made to open the site onto Chapman Avenue, and lower the height of an existing block wall along Cambridge Street. Mr. Prothero: So, the building does not presently conform to Old Towne design guidelines ? (Agreed) His impression from these elevations is that not enough is being done to consider this proposal as an upgrade. There is much that can be done to improve the appearance of the building. It's a relatively clean set of elevations; a clean slate, so to speak. Misters DeRevere and Gates invited recommendations. Mr. Prothero replied that the project is an architectural challenge, and there is very little he can recommend except that the applicants should attempt to address the guidelines and historic architectural context. This solution works with the building, if it were not located in Old Towne. (To staff:) How do the guidelines address this situation? Jim Donovan (staff): Presently, the guidelines do not specifically address the issue. Generally, the guidelines require that the applicant define an architectural style that is relevant to the architectural period from 1880 through 1940, and expand upon it. Revised guidelines will take affect on September 1, 1995. He will make sure that the applicants have copies of the adopted guidelines before they leave this evening. Mr. Gates: If plans can be revised so that no changes are made to the building's facade, would the project be exempt from Old Towne guidelines ? Jim Donovan: Guidelines require a review for tenant improvements, unless alterations are limited to 25 percent, or less. Ms. Wolfe: Clearly, the board cannot approve the proposal that is before them now. She asked whether the applicants would be willing to revise the proposal, and continue discussion at the next meeting ? Mr. DeRevere: Yes. He will have to consult with the contractor (Mr. Gates) to balance the extent of revisions, and to keep the costs of the project within budget. (Continued on a following page) City of Orange • Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for August 23, 1995 Page 8 (Continued from a previous page) Mr. Prothero: The architectural period should be the focus of discussion. Window spacing and proportions need attention. Detail such as wainscot, building trim, should be key. Jim Donovan asked the board members if there were any comments about sign plans. In discussion with representatives from Superior sign company, there have been two code conflicts identified: (1) the overall length of any wall sign is limited to 20 feet; and (2) internal illumination is not permitted. The plans indicate that one sign is 31 feet long and the materials or method of illumination have not been specified for some of the lettering (that reads "of California"). Mr. Adams presented the sign proposal. The sign color would be blue. The secondary lettering ("of California") would be internally-illuminated. Jim Donovan: Internally-illuminated signs are categorically prohibited by the guidelines. Mr. Prothero: The signs appear to be quite large, in proportion to the building. The main wall sign on the south side of the building is exceedingly large. (The overall width of this sign should be reduced to 20 feet) Colors were also discussed. They appear to be subtle enough, in light of Old Towne requirements. Ms. Wolfe: However, the entire graphic representation is quite contemporary in composition. Both the arrangement and type style should be reconsidered. The applicant should refer to the type style guide that is listed within the guidelines. Like the architecture, the sign proposal is not enough to satisfy the intent of Old Towne guidelines. Mr. Adams asked the board to express an opinion for the freestanding sign. Ms. Wolfe and Mr. Prothero agreed that the sign design was acceptable. It appears to satisfy the intent of the guidelines. The specific location was also discussed. Mr. DeRevere and the board agreed that the sign should be situated a little farther east of the driveway (at least 15 feet, according to the sign code). The board discussed the next submittal deadline with staff. The D.R.B. packets will have to be distributed in approximately one week. Iri order to allow more time for the applicant to revise plans, Mr. Prothero and Ms. Wolfe agreed to let the applicants bring a revised proposal directly to the next meeting. MOTION by Steve Prothero to continue this review until the next regular meeting of the D.R.B., on Wednesday, September 6, 1995. SECOND: Erika Wolfe AYES: Steve McHams, Steve Prothero & Erika Wolfe NOES: None ABSENT: Robert Hornacek & Beau Shigetomi MOTION CARRIED City of Orange • Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for August 23, 1995 Page 9 (Item No. 8) DRB No. 3092 EI Conejo, Inc. Restaurant remodel and expansion 1009 N. Tustin St. Limited Business District (C-1) John T. Ahern, Architect Tustin Street Redevelopment Project Area The applicants were represented by John Ahern (Architect) and Jose Castellanos (Owner). Mr. Ahern made a presentation of the building elevations, and provided background information about the restaurant's construction. Limited demolition of the existing restaurant, which once included alegally-permitted patio addition, has already begun. The applicants are proposing to reconstruct the patio area as a dining room and make substantial architectural improvements to the facade. Jim Donovan (staff): The staff has some concern about the drive approach. The applicant has been asked to revise the site plan to provide stacking area for inbound vehicles, so the (lateral) depth of an existing planter (at the southeast corner of the site) will be increased from 10 feet, to approximately 30 feet. At this time, the board is asked to take an action limited to building elevations only, with an understanding that the applicant will prepare a landscape plan for subsequent review. Mr. Prothero expressed appreciation for the architectural plans, as submitted. Site plan improvements were discussed in detail. Photographs of the existing planters were requested, but Mr. Ahern's photographs did not detail the entire site. Mr. Castellanos said that they hoped to leave the existing landscape in place, and perhaps to add palm trees. Mr. Prothero replied that the board would have to see more information before they could agree that existing landscaping is sufficient. Jim Donovan: Landscaping plans are a requirement for project approval. Ordinarily, a building permit will not be issued until the plans are prepared by the applicant, submitted and approved by the D.R.B. The applicant's photographs showed a low garden wall along the southern property line that is in need of some repair. Mr. Prothero added that it should be repaired as part of the project. The applicant agreed. Signs were also discussed. Mr. Prothero and Ms. Wolfe generally agreed that the graphic composition, size and location of wall signs were acceptable. However, sign specifications will have to be prepared and submitted to indicate the method of fabrication, materials, colors, etc. Those plans should also detail the replacement panel for the freestanding sign. MOTION by Steve Prothero to approve the building elevations as submitted. The applicant will prepare and submit plans for approval of landscaping and signs, before the project should be considered as approved in a final form. Site plan modifications must be made according to adopted development standards, and the revised site plan should be reviewed and approved by staff before a landscape plan is prepared. The applicant will also make repairs to concrete block walls as a condition of approval. SECOND: Steve McHarris AYES: Steve McHarris, Steve Prothero & Erika Wolfe NOES: None ABSENT: Robert Hornacek & Beau Shigetomi MOTION CARRIED