1995-09-20 Final DRC MinutesCity of Orange
Design Review Board
M I N U T E S
for Wednesday, September 20, 1995
Board Members Present
Board Members Absent:
Staff in Attendance:
Steve McHams
Steven C. Prothero, Chair
Beau Shigetomi
Erika Wolfe
Tim Donovan, Associate Planner & Secretary
Barbara Gander, Associate Planner
Howard Moms, Landscape Coordinator
Dan Ryan, Senior Planner /Historic Preservation
The board convened for an administrative session at approximately 4:30 P.M. This meeting adjourned at
approximately 6:45 P.M.
Regular Session - S: 00 P.M.
Mr. Prothero asked if there were any comments about the meeting minutes from September 6, 1995.
Concerning the final item, Item No. 6 (D.R.B. No. 3096), Mr. McHarris thought that the applicant stated
the height of the proposal to be 40 feet, not 30, as indicated by the minutes. Mr. Prothero agreed. Jim
Donovan (Staff recalled that the height of the structure was discussed in apre-application discussion with
Mark Goodley, who stated that overall height would be reduced from 38 to 30 feet so that the project would
satisfy the city's maximum height standard. Staff will seek clarification from the applicant as to what is
proposed for the height.
Mr. Prothero also notes that discussion from Item No. 1 (D.R.B. No. 3091) implies that Old Towne Design
Standards allow "metal" windows to be used in construction (page 3, on paragraph 5). It probably should
read "steel," since the board was trying to convince the applicant that aluminum-framed windows may not
be used, and aluminum is a metal product.
MOTION by Steve Prothero to approve the minutes minutes with those revisions.
SECOND: Beau Shigetomi
AYES: Steve McHarris, Steve Prothero & Beau Shigetomi
NOES: None
ABSENT: Erika Wolfe
MOTI O N C A R R I E D
City of Orange • Design Review Board
Meeting Minutes for September 20, 1995
Page 2
Regular Session -Consent Calendar
Mr. Prothero (Chair) asked other board members whether any applications were adequately prepared and
required no further presentation from the applicants. If so, he invited motions for project approval.
Mr. McHams: Residential building elevations for Sheffield Homes (D.R.B. 3098, Item No. 2 on this
agenda) are adequate for this larger-lot subdivision. Other board members agreed.
MOTION by Steve McHams to approve the proposed building elevations as submitted. Landscape and
irrigation plans must be submitted to complete the application to D.R.B. A grading plan must also be
submitted with those plans.
SECOND: Beau Shigetomi
AYES: Steve McHarris, Steve Prothero & Beau Shigetomi
NOES: None
ABSENT: Erika Wolfe
MOTION C A R R I E D
Mr. Shigetomi: Building elevations for the Riscalla residence (D.R.B. 3102, Item No. 6 on this agenda) are
also adequate for this residential tract. Seeing no existing trees to be affected by development, there
appears to be no requirement or other need to discuss landscape enhancements.
MOTION by Beau Shigetomi to approve the proposal as submitted.
SECOND: Steve McHa.rris
AYES: Steve McHarris, Steve Prothero & Beau Shigetomi
NOES: None
ABSENT: Erika Wolfe
MOTI O N C A R R I E D
Mr. Shigetomi: The sign proposal for "Prospect Hill" (D.R.B. 3103, Item No. 7 on this agenda) is also
adequate. The staff has reported that the garden wall (to which this sign would be attached) already exists.
MOTION by Beau Shigetomi to approve the proposal as submitted.
SECOND: Steve McHarris
AYES: Steve McHarris, Steve Prothero & Beau Shigetomi
NOES: None
ABSENT: Erika Wolfe
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 20, 1995
Page 3
(Item No. 1) DRB 3097
Mark Bruto A residential accessory building
444 S. Center St. Residential Duplex District (R-2); Old Towne District
The applicant represented himself at this meeting.
Misters McHarris and Prothero had several questions about the proposed roof pitch, the height of the
ceiling, and what siding would be used. The plan lacks sufficient detail to address these questions.
Photographs were available for project comparison to the existing residence. Mr. Bruto explained that he
would match the pitch of roof on the existing residence. Greater internal clearance of 10 feet is proposed
between the ceiling and the finished floor. Since the house was built upon a raised foundation, there should
be no appreciable difference between the overall height of the two structures. A sample of redwood siding
was submitted with his application. It would similarly match the width and the overlap of siding on the
residence.
Mr. McHarris: You would actually use the rolling by-pass doors that are shown on building elevations?
(Yes)
Mr. Prothero: The only remaining question is about the 3-foot-wide (approximate) access door on the east
elevation. The board recommends the use of a raised panel door at this location. (Mr. Bruto agreed)
MOTION by Steve Prothero to approve the proposal as submitted, and based upon the content of
discussion, with a raised panel wooden door on the east elevation.
SECOND: Steve McHarris
AYES: Steve McHarris, Steve Prothero & Beau Shigetomi
NOES: None
ABSENT: Erika Wolfe
MOTI O N C A R R I E D
City of Orange • Design Review Board
Meeting Minutes for September 20, 1995
Page 4
(Item No. 3) DRB 3099
Wild West Center Architectural upgrade for a commercial center, including a
S 8~ A Properties tenant wall sign program
789-889 S. Tustin St. Limited Business District (C-1)
Kurt Donat, Architect Tustin Street Redevelopment Project Area
Kurt Donat was present for discussion. The board asked him to explain more fully the extent of this
project. He reports that all commercial development on this side of this block is now owned by one entity,
with one exception being a Shell service station at the corner of Fairhaven and Tustin. The bad economy
has left the center with a high vacancy rate, and the owner has a desire to upgrade and integrate the
architecture and give it the appearance of a unified commercial center, rather than a collection of
miscellaneous commercial buildings. The predominant architectural element was duplicated from the
"Mainly Seconds" (former Shipley's or Wild West) store, and would be repeated elsewhere, at other
locations in the center.
Mr. Donat also presented plaster samples to supplement colored elevations. Canvas awnings (that exist on
the face of primary elevations) would be replaced with longer-lasting metal awnings, and astanding-seam
metal roof would replace dissimilar roof materials on buildings that have a sloped roof. The property
owner also wishes to close off an existing 2-way drive aisle, to create an outdoor dining area for a
restaurant tenant.
Mr. Shigetomi was reluctant to approve the color scheme that was proposed, especially a "pumpkin" color
that would be used as a secondary architectural application. He was also concerned about landscaping.
Whenever there is a proposal that substantially affects the building facade, landscaping in the adjacent
planters is usually removed to provide access during construction, or is otherwise destroyed by construction
workers. There is a landscape plan with this proposal, but it does not adequately replace what may be lost.
Mr. Donat agreed that existing landscaping will be affected. The owner intends to make landscape
enhancements, replacing square-cornered curbs around some of the planters in the parking facility to the
point where whole planters will be reconstructed.
Mr. Prothero stated that he is not necessarily opposed to the color scheme (in contrast to Mr. Shigetomi's
concern). He discussed variations inherent to the use of colored markers on elevations, the plaster samples
and paint chips. Some colors could be muted, especially the green color that is proposed.
Mr. Donat expressed a willingness to compromise, according to the client's preferences. He asked the
board for an opinion about the sign program.
Mr. Shigetomi: The written text reads all right, but he is concerned about what is represented within the
drawings. There are roof-mounted signs displayed on Building F.
(Continued on the following page)
City of Orange • Design Review Board
Meeting Minutes for September 20, 1995
Page S
(Continued from the previous page)
Mr. Prothero: You must have a vertical surface to install wall signs. Roof signs are not permitted by the
city's sign code. You could place signs on a raised parapet, or keep them located below the eaveline.
Attention turned to the landscape plan. Howard Morris: staff does not recommend installation of a drip
imgation system, because they are susceptible to vandalism and deterioration. Staff also requests that turf
be planted in the required yard along Tustin Street, rather than White Pelargonium.
Mr. McHarris asked if there were any improvements planned along the back property line, adjacent to
residential properties.
Mr. Donat said none were proposed at this time, but the plan could be amended. Photographs indicate that
some planters behind the buildings are in need of a little maintenance. He and the board members agreed
that a pine tree should be removed from one of these planters, and improvements should address one planter
at the rear of the main building ("Mainly Seconds"). He will also work with staff to determine what trees
may be added along the rear property line. Mr. Donat understood that the project will require further
review, but expressed a desire to obtain partial approval of the project. The property owner would like to
proceed with the project as soon as possible, and he heard no opposition to the structural modifications that
would affect the building elevations. If there is no objection, he would like to proceed with a building
permit submittal for the more labor-intensive portions of construction.
MOTION by Steve Prothero to approve proposed elevations for buildings A, B, & C. Site plan
modifications and the sign program are also approved as submitted. Prior to final project approval, the
applicant will submit a revised and more detailed landscape plan, and prepare a modified color scheme.
SECOND: Steve McHams
AYES: Steve McHarris, Steve Prothero & Beau Shigetomi
NOES: None
ABSENT: Erika Wolfe
MOTI O N C A R R I E D
City of Orange • Design Review Board
Meeting Minutes for September 20, 1995
Page 6
(Item No. 4) DRB 3100 Recommendation to Planning Commission
Alberfsons, Inc. Elevations for planned redevelopment of a supermarket
3325 W. Chapman Ave. Limited Business District (C-1)
(N.E.C. at Prospect St.)
Thomas M. Courtney, Architect
The project was presented to the board by Tom Courtney, architect, and Lisa Patterson, landscape
architect. Mr. Courtney said that the existing supermarket building would be demolished, along with a
portion of the adjacent commercial building, and a new supermarket would be constructed in place. The
landscape will be enhanced substantially. Dedication and improvement of a right turn lane and a bus bay
would occur within adjacent public rights of way. He is hoping that such upgrades will convince the city
that the project should be approved.
Mr. Prothero had a question about the timing of the dedication and improvement. Is the work a part of this
project, or would it occur later?
Jim Donovan (Star: Timing is usually determined by the City Engineer, or the city's Traffic Engineer.
Improvements are not ordinarily made until the city acquires property that is necessary from the adjacent
property owner; in this case, the owner of the Chevron service station on the corner parcel. Alternatively,
the city would require dedication and a cash bond for subsequent improvements.
Mr. Shigetomi expressed concern about related landscape enhancements. These plans do not reflect
integration of the dedications within the scope of immediate construction for this project. There should be a
landscaped setback that is provided as a buffer between the pavement for the parking facility and the edge
of the sidewalk.
Barabara Gander (Staff): The applicant will be required to make those improvements at this time. She and
the applicants have discussed this issue, but the plans have not yet been revised.
Lisa Patterson discussed the landscape plan more specifically. She proposes to add "Date Palms" within
the parking area and many Ficus trees along the perimeter, while retaining the existing Lcrgerstromia, and
adding more at other locations. They would also like to use Escolonia for the screen hedge for the parking
facility.
Mr. Shigetomi: Generally, he has no problems with the landscaping that is proposed, although the plans
should be supplemented to detail the required yard along the edge of the future property line, etc. He
recommends that, wherever the applicant intends to use cobbles within tree wells, the larger sized cobbles
be used. Smaller sized stones tend to get thrown around, and can be used to vandalize property. The larger
sized stones are not so easily moved. There is also some concern about the Ficus trees proposed along
Prospect Avenue.
(Continued on the following page)
City of Orange • Design Review Board
Meeting Minutes for September 20, 1995
Page 7
(Continued from the previous page)
Howard Morris (Staff): The city plants Ficus trees quite frequently in tree wells along sidewalks, but only
within a deep root barrier. Similarly, the applicant should use deep root barriers for any Ficus trees that
are located near paved areas, to avoid destruction to the sidewalk and parking areas. The staff also
recommends Pyrus calleryana (Bradford Pear), rather than P. kawakamii (Evergreen Pear), because of
susceptibility to Fire Blight Disease.
Mr. Shigetomi: The applicant should consider using mildew-resistant species for all new Crape Myrtle
trees. The local climate is not well-suited for the varieties that are proposed on these plans.
Mr. McHarris directed atention to the rear portion of the project site. He expressed a concern about the
difference between the present location of the building, and proximity of new construction to the rear
property line. It is a rather large building and will be quite tall, when viewed from the back yards of
adjacent residential properties. He asked whether there is any possibility that landscape planters may be
added as a buffer long the property line.
Mr. Courtney stated that the effort for improvement was concentrated at the front of the building. He
considered this area to be a service area, and accessible primarily for shipping and receiving. It is 30 feet
wide, and that full width is needed fortractor-trailer delivery trucks.
Mr. Prothero agreed with Mr. McHarris that the project needs some attention at this location. The board
has a responsibility to protect adjacent residential properties.
Howard Moms: Construction of such a large wall, at this location, has the potential for graffiti problems.
He and the board discussed the possibility of planting vines in wells along the rear wall of the structure; one
for each architectural module, or panel, on the rear elevation.
Mr. Prothero: Concern remains for the view from residential property. It would be a very large block wall,
and the applicant proposes to use precision block. He'd rather see asplit-face block, with the vine pockets
as well.
Mr. Courtney agreed that split-face block could be used all the way across the rear elevation.
Ms. Patterson: To clarify, even if split-faced block is used in construction, would we still need to plant
vines in pockets?
Mr. McHarris: Yes; the need for relief is twofold: to mitigate the stark appearance of an imposing building
and to minimize the risk of vandalism by graffiti.
(Continued on the following page)
City of Orange • Design Review Board
Meeting Minutes for September 20, 1995
Page 8
(Continued from the previous page)
Mr. Courtney turned attention to building elevations. He described the proposal as both a classic and a
"mission-eclectic" use of architecture on the facade, although there is more interest in landscaping, good
quality stonework, and a monumental quality of the structure. On the west side of the building, for
example, the building serves as more of a backdrop for the landscape plan.
Mr. Prothero said that he had no qualms about the architecture, but would like to see some attention to
landscaping in the front area. There is a wide sidewalk along the base of the building, with no landscape
relief.
Mr. Shigetomi scaled the width of the sidewalk to 20 feet. There is room for something there; palm trees,
at a minimum. Was Albertsons planning on using this area for anything else? Shopping cart storage is
already shown on the plan.
Mr. Courtney was uncertain. He and the board discussed the possibility that the area might be improved
with a planter. A conventional planter might not be compatible with shopping cart traffic.
Mr. Prothero: Enhanced paving is another possibility. He suggested trees in wells, midway between the
face of building and the curb. Tree grates and cages would have to be used to protect the tree bark.
Ms. Patterson: So, the options are to use a continuous planter, or plant trees in wells? (Yes, generally)
Mr. Shigetomi: Since the plan is incomplete, or requires so much modification, the board's review of a final
landscape plan will be required.
MOTION by Steve Prothero, to recommed approval of the project subject to the following conditions.
1. The building elevation for the north side will be revised to include split face block, to match the
material sample submitted for use on other (south and west) elevations.
2. The landscape plan will be revised to include modifications to the setback (or yards) wherever
dedications will occur for adjacent public rights of way.
3. Landscape plans will also be modified to coordinate any improvements to circulation within the
parking facility, as required by Staff Review Committee.
4. Landscape plans will include vine pockets, to be located approximately 20 feet on center, along the
base of the building's northern wall.
(Continued on the following page)
City of Orange • Design Review Board
Meeting Minutes for September 20, 1995
Page 9
(Continued from the previous page)
5. Additional landscape enhancements will be considered by the applicant and proposed for the front
of the building.
6. The use of Pyrus kawakamii, "Evergreen Pear" is not recommended because of susceptibility to
Fire Blight Disease. Pyrus calleryana, "Bradford Pear" is recomended instead.
7. The developer will provide deep root barriers for Ficus benjamina, "Weeping Chinese Bantan"
trees throughout the site.
8. The applicant will submit a final landscape plan for review and approval by D.R.B.
SECOND: Beau Shigetomi
AYES: Steve McHams, Steve Prothero & Beau Shigetomi
NOES: None
ABSENT: Erika Wolfe
MOTI O N C A R R I E D
City of Orange • Design Review Board
Meeting Minutes for September 20, 1995
Page 10
(Item No. 5) DRB 3101
Texaco/Subway Two wall signs proposed for a service station building
1815 N. Tustin St. (at Taft Ave.) Limited Business District (C-1)
A 8~ S Engineering Tustin Street Redevelopment Project Area
The board reviewed photographs and had questions about the number of signs on the property. No
representative was present for discussion.
• Existing freestanding and wall signs advertise the car wash, the food mart, etc. If any other
signs are to be permitted, non-conforming signs should be removed first.
• Two new cabinets would be added to the freestanding sign. Is such an expansion of this sign
permissible? (No, according to staff)
• There is no dimension line provided between the bottom of the sign and grade. A minimum
clearance of 8 feet is required, according to staff.
Since no applicant's representative was present for discussion, review will be continued until October 4,
1995. No motion was made and no action taken.
REVIEW C O N T I N U E D U N T I L OCTOBER 4, 1 9 9 5