Loading...
1995-09-06 Final DRC MinutesCity of Orange Design Review Board M I N U T E S for Wednesday, September 6, 1995 Board Members Present: Board Members Absent: Staff in Attendance: Steven McHarris Steven Prothero Beau Shigetomi Erika Wolfe Robert Hornacek Jim Donovan, Associate Planner & Secretary Dan Ryan, Senior Planner -Historic Preservation The board met for an administrative session beginning at 4:30 P.M. This meeting adjourned at approximately 7:30 P.M. Mr. Prothero mentioned that new regulations are effective beginning this month, as an update of the zoning ordinance. He suggested that the D.R.B. get together some time in the near future, so that staff may deliver a presentation of the more significant changes that are relative to the board's review. Jim Donovan (staff) reported that the Planning Commission has also requested a study session for the same purpose. Perhaps the D.R.B. could attend that same meeting. Board members agreed. Staff will advise the board of the date and time, as soon as the meeting is scheduled. Regular Session - S: 00 P.M. Mr. Prothero asked other board members if there were revisions to be made to the previous meeting's minutes? Mr. McHarris indicated that he was willing to move toward approval without revision, unless there were any other comments? (None expressed) MOTION to approve the meeting minutes for Wednesday, August 23, 1995, as recorded. SECOND: Erika Wolfe AYES: Steve McHams, Steve Prothero & Erika Wolfe NOES: None ABSTAIN: Beau Shigetomi MOTI O N C A R R I E D City of Orange • Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for September 6, 1995 Page 2 Regular Session -Consent Calendar Mr. Prothero (Chair) solicited opinions from board members as to whether any applications were adequately prepared and required no further presentation. If so, he would entertain a motion for project approval. Ms. Wolfe: The sign proposals for the "Hitch'n Post" (D.R.B. No. 3094, item No. 5 on this agenda) look appropriate for the building design. MOTION by Erika. Wolfe, to approve this proposal as submitted. SECOND: Steve McHarris AYES: Steve McHams, Steve Prothero, Beau Shigetomi & Erika Wolfe NOES: None ABSENT: Robert Hornacek MOTI O N C A R R I E D No other items were recommended for approval at this time. City of Orange • Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for September 6, 1995 Page 3 (Item No. 1) DRB 3091 Primary Care Doctors Conversion of a public utility building to a medical office - of California elevations and signage. 845 E. Chapman Ave. Office Professional District (O-P) (118 N. Cambridge St.) Old Towne District DeRevere 8~ Associates The applicants were represented by Del DeRevere and Peter Morns (Architects), Randy Gates (Contractor) and George Adams (from Superior Electrical Advertising). The applicants' plans were not distributed to board members with packets, but were available for the administrative session of this meeting. Photographs of the building were also available for review. Mr. DeRevere asked the board whether this proposal compared favorably to that presented at the prior D.R.B. meeting. (General agreement) Mr. Prothero: What is proposed for the architectural color palette? (Mr. DeRevere presented color samples on chips.) Mr. Prothero and Mr. McHarris asked several questions to clarify their understanding of new work. Modifications to building elevations would include only new windows at several locations, and architectural trim (including coping along the top of the building, intermediate-level molding to establish horizontal strata within the elevations). The applicant is not proposing any new door openings. Mr. Gates: Are we required to install "true divided light" windows? We would prefer fixed windows with aluminum trim. Mr. Prothero: Old Towne design standards require only that wood or metal window frames be used in new construction. Particular concern was expressed that fixed glazing and aluminum trim would lend a modern appearance to "storefront" windows on the north elevation. Mr. Prothero mentioned that he has seen aluminum products that look virtually the same as steel, but each product must be individually considered. Mr. DeRevere suggested that opaque glass be used for certain window panes. Ms. Wolfe: We should see a sample of what you intend to use. Mr. Prothero agreed. The solution will require product research, to be completed by the applicants. After further discussion, Mr. Prothero indicated that window specifications could be reviewed and approved by the Senior Planner, Historic Preservation (Dan Ryan). Dan Ryan: Since the building is located on east Chapman, windows should have more of a residential character (Board members agreed). Mr. Prothero: There is no specific detail of the type of doors that would be used. Narrow-stile aluminum doors would not be appropriate. A wider-stile door would be O.K. Mr. Prothero then suggested they consider on-site improvements that would be necessary. (Continued on a following page) City of Orange • Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for September 6, 1995 Page 4 (Continued from a previous page) Mr. DeRevere discussed those improvements, which would be limited to removal and replacement of much vegetation, curb and pavement repair in the parking area. The applicants have been advised by staff that they cannot obtain access to Chapman Avenue, as is presently proposed. Mr. DeRevere noted that existing Eucalyptus trees should probably be removed, because the roots are uplifting sidewalks and pavement in the parking area. Mr. McHarris and Mr. Shigetomi agreed that the trees should be removed. Mr. McHarris suggested something smaller, with compact growth to complement the low profile of the building, and to fill in the blank spaces in the elevations. He suggested a flowering tree, such as a "Crape Myrtle." Mr. Shigetomi and Mr. Prothero discussed the possibility of adding more trees in the parking area, especially near the eastern property line. Trees could be planted in triangular wells, and vine pockets may be provided. The applicant also has an option to install a planter behind a continuous, raised curb. At least 3 trees should be provided at this location, evenly spaced. The applicant will have to prepare and submit a landscape plan. Mr. DeRevere: What sort of tree would you like to see planted there? Mr. Shigetomi suggested Tristania or Crape Myrtle. Something small. The board will anticipate a low hedge (36 to 42 inches high) to be provided as a screen along the outside edge of the parking facility. A comprehensive, revised sign plan was presented by George Adams. Mr. Prothero expressed a concern that the signs are not wholly compatible with the revised architectural proposal for this building. Examples from the sign company's portfolio (also presented by Mr. Adams) are less contemporary. Mr. Shigetomi: The method of fabrication is similar to construction of wall signs that have a "raceway." The board has always discouraged raceways. In this case, the three-dimensional light box would bow away from the face of the building, projecting from the wall a distance of 18 inches at the sign's center. Mr. Adams: The sign is intended to be visible from moving traffic. Mr. Prothero: The sign design contradicts the architecture. The long horizontal composition makes it unlikely that the entire surface of a curved sign would be visible when viewed from an angle... He appreciates the design. If the building were not located in Old Towne, he would fully support this proposal. While it may satisfy the letter of the regulations, it does not meet the intent of making a proposal appropriate for a defined architectural period. He suggests that the sign be made flat. Mr. McHarris and Ms. Wolfe also expressed a concern about the sign with stacked copy, proposed for the north elevation. It doesn't read well. There could be a reduction that is proportionate to the building. The board recommended that the lower of three lines (reading "of California") be reduced from seven to four inches, and that the designer work out proportions for the other two lines based upon the same percentage. (Continued on a following page) City of Orange • Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for September 6, 1995 Page S (Continued from a previous page) This sign should also be moved to lower location on this elevation, to alleviate crowding from nearby architectural molding. Mr. Shigetomi noted that the freestanding sign is proposed at a location that is adjacent to the drive approach. Mr. DeRevere and Mr. Adams agreed that the sign should be moved a distance of at least 15 feet east of that location. MOTION by Steven Prothero, to approve the proposal subject to the following conditions, as discussed in review: 1. Samples of glass, with different grades of opacity, and colors will be considered for fixed "storefront" windows on the north side of the building. The applicants will consult with the Senior Planner /Historic Preservation, for review and approval of appropriate products. 2. All doors will have wide stiles, and applied trim if a metal door is used. A detail (or product specifications) will also be provided for review and approval by the Senior Planner. A landscape planting plan must be prepared and submitted for review by Design Review Board. An automatic imgation system must be provided for all planted areas. The Landscape Coordinator will verify whether any existing irrigation system is adequate. If not, upgrades to the system maybe required. 4. Existing Eucalyptus trees will be removed, and replaced with a small, flowering species. Crape Myrtle is recommended for required yards along Chapman Avenue and Cambridge Street. 5. At least three trees will be planted within wells, or in a new planter, to be constructed in the parking area, along the eastern edge of the site. 6. The wall sign on the south elevation (sign C-1) will be fabricated in the same manner as wall signs proposed on east and west elevations (C-2 and C-3): flat, or parallel to the wall in plan view, with an overall projection not to exceed 12 inches from the wall (per O.M.C. § 17.36.080-E). 7. The wall sign on the north elevation (C-4) shall be reduced to fit the space where it is proposed, so that horizontal and vertical dimensions are condensed by approximately 43 percent. The sign will also be moved approximately 12 to 18 inches below its present location. 8. The freestanding sign will be moved a minimum distance of 15 feet east of any new drive approach that is constructed adjacent to Chapman Avenue. SECOND: Erika Wolfe AYES: Steve McHams, Steve Prothero, Beau Shigetomi & Erika Wolfe NOES: None ABSENT: Robert Hornacek MOTI O N C A R R I E D City of Orange • Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for September 6, 1995 Page 6 (Item No. 2) DRB 3053 Walgreens Express Landscape plan and signs for drive-through pharmacy N.W.C. Chapman & Prospect Limited Business District (C-1) Thomas P. Cox, Architect The applicant was represented by David Sheegog. The plans are detail pages from a comprehensive submittal, indicating wall signs, a freestanding sign, and a landscape planting plan. Mr. Shigetomi: The landscaping plan should include some more trees along the northern property line. There is a narrow planter that is already proposed along the north edge, extending from the eastern side of the property. Two more Trtstania trees should be added within that planter. Mr. Sheegog: Can those trees be relocated (or eliminated) from required yards along the public rights of way? He thought the landscape architect was perhaps too generous with the trees. Mr. Shigetomi: No. These are rather small and slow-growing trees. Since those rear planters are so narrow, root barriers should be used to protect the pavement. Mr. Prothero asked the staff about the size (height and display area) of proposed wall signs. He is aware that the height of the sign is no longer restricted, but the sign looks rather large for the building. Jim Donovan (staff): The sign is large when compared to the footprint of the occupied building, but not when compared to the overall roofline (which includes a covering over two drive-through lanes). The code limits display area according to "building frontage," but it does not specify whether display area is limited by measure at the base of the building, or along the roofline. The ratio of display area for these signs is no larger than the corresponding width of the roofline. (One square foot per lineal foot) Mr. Prothero (to Mr. Sheegog): Plastic panels for all signs will have to be opaque, including the freestanding sign with the changeable copy. Consequently, the freestanding sign will have to be revised to eliminate the white plastic panel with changeable copy. Mr. Sheegog asked whether such a requirement may be appealed. He is not sure that the client (or corporation) would want to do so, but he has a responsibility to keep them informed of their options. Jim Donovan: Opaque backgrounds are required by code, rather than by this particular review. As such, there is no D.R.B. decision to be appealed. If Walgreen seeks relief from such a requirement, a variance application would have to be submitted. Mr. Prothero: This requirement extends not only to the background for the freestanding sign, but also to wall signs. They, too, must have an opaque background. The field must be opaque. Mr. Sheegog: Walgreens has various signs that are available for installation under various circumstances. He expressed confidence that the freestanding sign can be revised according to city requirements. (Continued on a following page) City of Orange • Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for September 6, 1995 Page 7 (Continued from a previous page) MOTION by Erika Wolfe, to approve the proposal that was submitted for review, subject to the following requirements: 1. Two trees will be added within a planter that is proposed along the northern property line, east end near Prospect Street. Deep root barriers will be required for any tree that is planted within 5 feet from a paved area. All trees maybe planted from 15-gallon containers, minimum size. 2. All signs must have an opaque background. The "changeable copy" area for the freestanding sign must revised or removed from the proposal, to eliminate the transparent white plastic background. SECOND: Beau Shigetomi AYES: Steve McHarris, Steve Prothero, Beau Shigetomi & Erika Wolfe NOES: None ABSENT: Robert Hornacek MOTI O N C A R R I E D City of Orange • Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for September 6, 1995 Page 8 (Item No. 3) DRB 3089 AI Ricci New garage, with laundry room addition 133 N. Grand Ave. Office Professional District (O-P) R.C. Colin Co. Old Towne District The proposal was presented by Al Ricci and Bob Colin. Mr. Colin stated that it is a rather simple proposal: replacement of a small garage, with a laundry area. Mr. Ricci pointed to an area in the (north) side yard that has been used for outdoor laundry. The existing garage is dilapidated, and new construction will consolidate parking and a laundry area within one accessory building. Photographs of the property were also reviewed. Mr. Prothero: I didn't see anything wrong with the proposal. The building's architectural form and proportions look fine. I think the only questions are about finish detail. Ms. Wolfe: For those columns proposed on the new building, do you intend to match flute details of columns on the existing residence? (Yes) There is no detail for the garage door, or the exterior door to the laundry area. (The garage door would be a sectional door.) The board ordinarily recommends araised- panel wooden door. The same is true for the 3-foot-wide door. It should be a 6-panel door. (Agreed) Mr. McHarris: Plans show horizontal siding mitered at each corner. If you intend to use Masonite siding, won't you be using vertical trim at each corner? (Yes) MOTION by Steve Prothero to approve the building as plans were submitted, subject to the following conditions: 1. Columns proposed on the new building should match the fluted details of columns on the existing residence. 2. A raised-panel wooden door shall be installed on the garage. The laundry room's exterior door should be a 6-panel door, unless a better product is found by the applicant. (Subject to verification by the Senior Planner /Historic Preservation) 3. Horizontal wood siding will be mitered at corners only if milled lumber is used in construction. Masonite siding (or similar product), cannot be mitered, and will be butt-matched to vertical trim at each corner. SECOND: Steve McHarris AYES: Steve McHarris, Steve Prothero, Beau Shigetomi & Erika Wolfe NOES: None ABSENT: Robert Hornacek MOTI O N C A R R I E D City of Orange • Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for September 6, 1995 Page 9 (Item No. 4) DRB 3093 Higgins Furniture Building elevations and parking lot fencing plan 155 S. Glassell St. Limited Business District (C-1); Plaza. Historic District RCB Architecture Southwest Redevelopment Project Area The applicant was represented Rich Brumfield (Architect). He reported that seismic stabilization work is underway. The intent of this proposal is to make the building contribute more to the historic context of the Plaza Historic District. Mr. Prothero and Ms. Wolfe asked a number of questions about architectural detail, and what is planned for the wall signs. Mr. Brumfield replied that a wall sign would be relocated from the south elevation to the west elevation, over the street entrance. Mr. Brumfield simplified the signs on his plans only because he did not have the technical ability to replicate the Higgins trademark on his computer. Mr. Prothero: What is the purpose of new fencing? Mr. Brumfield: Security. The main problem is after-hours use of the parking lot. Residents in an adjacent apartment building are using it for car repair, or to pass things in and out of the windows. Gates would be provided at either end of the lot, and they would remain open at both ends during regular business hours. Mr. Prothero: What's going to happen along the south edge of the parking lot, adjacent to the apartment building? Is the fence proposal legal, if it would block the window openings? Mr. Brumfield: The windows are not legal. Residents are using them as pass-through's, and trespassing on his client's property. There would be emergency access provided at each window of the apartment building. McHarris: Isn't there another solution that might be more appropriate, like window screens? Mr. Prothero: Mr. Higgins has other, non-structural options in providing security. Lately, it seems that everything in Orange must be gated. Jim Donovan (staff) reported that the fencing plan must also be reviewed by other departments. There is no known conflict with the zoning ordinance, or Old Towne Design Standards. However, the proposal would restrict emergency egress from the apartments, and the traffic safety staff will have to verify that the proposal does not hamper sight-distance requirements, especially at the public alley behind the building. He and the applicant discussed these issues when the application was submitted. Mr. Shigetomi: Can the area below the fencing be landscaped? (Yes. There is a 2'-0" -wide planter proposed there.) What else can be done about landscaping? We need to see that more is provided in the downtown area, such as the improvements made years ago in the parking area behind Architects Orange. He suggested trees in wells, installed at each corner of the parking area, since it contains angled parking stalls and the space in these corners is otherwise wasted. (Continued on a following page) City of Orange • Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for September 6, 1995 Page 10 (Continued from a previous page) Mr. Prothero: What about the building? Dan, what do you know of the architectural history? Most buildings in the Plaza Historic District have a flat facade, higher ceilings inside, and transoms. This became the big issue in the restoration of the building across the street (owned by Ebert and Smith). Dan Ryan (staff): Obviously, the building was modernized in the 1960's. Other than that, there is no information available at this time. Mr. Prothero: We've had a great deal of difficulty lately in review of modifications planned for non- contributing buildings. What is proposed along the base of windows? Is that a wainscoting? (It's glass) I'm not entirely comfortable with this solution. Contextually, this was a difficult block for the Plaza Design Collaborative. Each of the buildings are non-contributing, or have been modified to the e~rtent that they are no longer contributing. Ms. Wolfe: Is there any change proposed to the street entry doors? (No.) Good. They are perhaps the most distinguishing characteristic of the facade. Mr. Prothero asked Mr. Brumfield to provide detail about finish materials, architectural colors. A colored elevation was available, but the plan lacks detail because it is a large building drawn at a small scale. Ms. Wolfe indicated that elevations must include more detail before the proposal could be approved. Mr. Brumfield volunteered to submit more detailed plans as a final submittal, if the board approves of this general presentation. Mr. Prothero agreed that his only reservations about the architectural proposal pertain to architectural detail. A final submittal will resolve that problem. MOTION by Steve Prothero, to approve this proposal as a preliminary plan. In a final form, the board would like to see plans that address the following conditions: 1. A landscape plan will be prepared for review and approval, to include one tree in each of the four corners of the parking area. 2. Detailed building elevations will be submitted for review by D.R.B., as a final submittal. Detail for columns and bulkheads must be included as part of that submittal. 3. Signs will not be installed above the top rail of the fencing. Any sign should be applied directly to the wrought-iron fence, and painted a contrasting color. Approval of the fencing plan is subject to review by staff, for code compliance. SECOND: Erika Wolfe AYES: Steve McHarris, Steve Prothero, Beau Shigetomi & Erika Wolfe NOES: None ABSENT: Robert Hornacek MOTI O N C A R R I E D City of Orange • Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for September 6, 1995 Page 11 (Item No. 6) DRB 3096 Super Sports, Inc. (O.U.S.D.) 17,100 sq. ft. shade cover for a roller hockey rink 2190 N. Canal St. (at Meats Ave.) Single Family Residential District (Rl-8) Mark Goodley, C.C.C., Inc. (Peralta Junior High School site) The applicant was represented by Mark Goodley. He made a presentation about purpose of the structure, operational mechanics and unique building materials. The structure is abarrel-vaulted cover proposed over a future roller-hockey court. It would be 30 feet high (along the top), approximately 180 feet long and 95 feet wide. The structure is made of a synthetic fabric that can be retracted along steel cables. Ms. Wolfe did not remember this being a part of the original proposal. This is a very large structure, and would be a significantly different feature on the landscape. Jim Donovan (staff): Some of the land use components have changed from what was originally reviewed by the board. This portion of the site plan was to include two circular batting cages (with chain link used for enclosures. The developer no longer intends to build those batting cages. The existing roller hockey operation will be relocated to this location, and the present hockey rink will be replaced by future expansion of the speed soccer facility. Mr. Goodley did not think it was much different than other structures on the site. The netting for the driving range was installed on tall poles (85 feet high). This structure would be much lower than that, and even lower than batting cages that were proposed (65 feet high). Mr. Prothero discussed the unknowns of this proposal at some length. He is uncomfortable with the project because the volume of the structure would be so great, yet all that was submitted for review was a computer-generated illustration that fit on one 8'/z-by-l l-inch page, and some structural details. What color of fabric would be used? Where and how would it fit on the property? How far would it be placed back from Meats Avenue? With a building of this size and the nature of its use, that is more important than how it looks. Has the applicant considered landscaping? Mr. Shigetomi: What we need to see is a scaled layout. The staff recommended that the applicant consult with the school district's lessee, Super Sports, and develop asite-specific plan. Detailed landscape architectural plans were prepared for initial review and final approval of the project. It would be most expeditious if the applicant could work with the same firm that produced those plans, so that they maybe revised, or amended. MOTION by Steve Prothero to continue review of this proposal until amended by a site plan and revised landscape plans. He is not ready to approve the project at this time, and remains skeptical that the mass and scale can be mitigated through the design review process. SECOND: Beau Shigetomi AYES: Steve McHarris, Steve Prothero, Beau Shigetomi & Erika Wolfe NOES: None ABSENT: Robert Hornacek MOTI O N C A R R I E D