CITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES FINAL

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "CITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES FINAL"

Sara Joseph
6 years ago
Views:

1 CITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES FINAL Committee Members Present: Carol Fox - Chair Craig Wheeler Vice Chair Robert Imboden Tim McCormack Anne McDermott March 16, 2016 Staff in Attendance: Robert Garcia, Senior Planner Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner Jennifer Le, Principal Planner Marissa Moshier, Associate Planner-Historic Preservation Sharon Penttila, Recording Secretary Administrative Session 5:00 Chair Fox opened the Administrative Session at 5:02 p.m. Chair Fox inquired if there was any Policy or Procedural information. Robert Garcia, Senior Planner, indicated there was no Policy or Procedural information. Mr. Garcia explained that the Santiago Hills II project special meeting tentatively set for March 30 th would not take place. Ms. Le asked the Committee what other day would work for all 5 Committee Members. The Committee agreed upon meeting Thursday, April 14, at 7:00 p.m. for this special meeting. Chair Fox stated she would appreciate it if the Committee Members agreed with previous comments on projects, that they do not restate them and just say they agree with those comments along with their additional comments. Committee Members reviewed the Design Review Committee minutes for February 24, 2016 and March 2, Committee Member McDermott asked Ms. Moshier about an update on the Watson s project since they had a soft opening today. Ms. Moshier stated Watson s had a temporary certificate of occupancy and would have 90 days to complete all the remaining DRC conditions on the exterior of the building. Vice Chair Wheeler made a motion to close the Administrative Session of the Design Review Committee meeting. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Anne McDermott Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Anne McDermott, and Craig Wheeler Tim McCormack Administrative Session adjourned at 5:26 p.m.

2 Page 2 of 11 Regular Session 5:33 p.m. ROLL CALL: Committee Member McCormack had not arrived at this time. All other Committee Members were present. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Opportunity for members of the public to address the Design Review Committee on matters not listed on the Agenda. There were no speakers. CONSENT ITEMS: (1) APPROVAL OF MINUTES: February 24, 2016 and Mach 2, 2016 Vice Chair Wheeler made a motion to approve the minutes from the Design Review Committee meetings of February 24, 2016 and March 2, 2016 as emended during the discussion at the Administrative Session. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Anne McDermott Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Anne McDermott, and Craig Wheeler Tim McCormack

3 Page 3 of 11 AGENDA ITEMS Continued Items: (2) DRC No The New Home Company (Marywood Site) Final review of the design elements for the construction of 40 new detached two-story singlefamily residences at the former Marywood Pastoral Center East Villareal Drive Staff Contact: Robert Garcia, , rgarcia@cityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination Robert Garcia, Senior Planner, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. The applicants who were present for this project were Patrick Murphy, David Kosco, David Mello, and Doug Staley. Public Comments: Chair Fox opened the item to the Public for comments. There were none. Chair Fox opened the item to the Committee for discussion. The DRC commented on the following: Asked the applicant to walk the Committee through the color schemes on the color boards on each of the 3 architectural styles. Noted the color schemes worked well together. Questioned the proposed landscaping material shown on the color rendering and confirmed the aloe vera would be used in front of the panel area. Liked the design of the vehicular entry. Concerned with the pavement colors at the vehicular entry since it seemed to be competing with the brick. Suggested using more neutral colors and wanted to see what it would really look like. Questioned the enhanced elevations on Lots 28 and 40 and how they fit in. Did not see where the privacy issues had been addressed on Lots 19 & 20 and 33 & 34. Noted on Plan 3 on Lots 19 & 20 and 33 & 34 they now have split windows and asked if that was to address the privacy issue. Wanted to add a recommendation to address the privacy issue in order to reduce the privacy concerns. Questioned if there was an elevation change on 19 & 20 and 33 & 34. Mr. Mello indicated there was a foot difference in elevation. Noted on some of the drawings it was hard to tell what was happening because some of the hash patterns disappeared. Satisfied with the architecture but concerned with the color and materials of the vehicular entry hardscape and plant material. The gate and concrete colors were shown on the renderings with both light and dark colors. Mr. Kosco indicated the two dimensional boards and construction drawings were very accurate in depicting those items.

4 Page 4 of 11 Needed to see the actual colors of the pavers and wood stain. Wanted to see the brick, wood, and the pavers together since they made up the vehicular entry. Questioned the salvaged casting and what color it would be. Most of the Committee was able to make a judgment on everything except the materials being used on the vehicular entry. Noted the vehicular entry was greatly improved from the first rendering including the massing, the transparency of the gates, and the nice reuse of the salvaged elements. Noted on the plans there were a few places where the labeling did not match such as the brick veneer which actually showed stucco over foam trim, and on Plan 1 on the Americana and Cottages styles where one view calls out for a composite column and the rear view shows it as a wood column. Questioned if the step-out balcony railings on the Monterey were real wood. Wanted more thorough callouts on materials being used. Questioned the iron railings right next to the wood railings on the front elevations like on Plan 2 of the Monterey. Questioned if the pot shelves on the Americana would look like wood. Noted the walls were no longer stacked and there would be no fences on top of the retaining walls between the lots. Asked if the maintainable space was on the upside of the retaining wall and would it be maintainable by the property owner on the downslope. Noted the improvement on the streetscape but was concerned with those trees being maintained on private property. Vice Chair Wheeler made a motion to approve DRC No , The New Home Company (Marywood Site), based on the findings and conditions listed in the Staff Report, and with the additional conditions: 1. A color and material board shall be brought back to the Committee prior to the issuance of a building permit for the vehicular entry area materials including pavers, walls, stain color on the woodwork, and brick. With the following recommendations: 1. Verify the notations of materials on the elevation drawings. 2. Continue to review the privacy between units and enhance if possible. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Anne McDermott Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Anne McDermott, and Craig Wheeler

5 Page 5 of 11 (3) DRC No The Pie Hole A proposal to install a new sign and awnings and paint the exterior of a restaurant in the Plaza Historic District. 177 N. Glassell Street, Plaza Historic District Staff Contact: Marissa Moshier, , mmoshier@cityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination Vice Chair Wheeler recused himself due to the proximity to his office and left the room. Marissa Moshier, Associate Planner-Historic Preservation, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. She explained the details now being proposed for the awnings; the new proposed paint colors for the exterior and the storefront bulkhead; and clarification on how the sign would be attached to the brick wall. The applicants who were present for this project were Sunny Pinhero, Rick Anaya, and Sean Brennan. Mr. Pinhero explained the various changes they had made following the Committee s comments from the previous meeting. Mr. Brennan described the other restaurants he currently owns in historic districts in the Los Angeles area and how he was mindful of the historic significance of historic buildings. Public Comments: Chair Fox opened the item to the Public for comments. There were none. Chair Fox opened the item to the Committee for discussion. The DRC commented on the following: A Committee Member was pleased with the new color selections because it fit better with the building. Happy with the information now given on the awnings. Confused with the pipe frames listed with the new frames on the drawing. Questioned the or that referred to the callout for galvanized or stainless steel on page 5 of the sign drawings. Wanted it to be strictly stainless steel to preserve the masonry façade. A Committee Member did not care for the white storefront frames but it was a neutral look and it did look good with the blueberry pie sign. Preferred the recessed awnings being proposed. Wanted clarification on how the awnings with the square tubing would be recessed into the openings. Questioned how the awning on the east side of the building would be mounted, which would not be recessed, and the exposure of the frame. Concerned that the awning would appear unfinished without a valance on the sides. Verified with the applicant that the fabric on the awnings and the frames would be the same color.

6 Page 6 of 11 Noted that the masonry anchors were not called out using the existing points of connection and wanted this clarified. Committee Member McDermott made a motion to approve DRC No , The Pie Hole, based on the findings and conditions listed in the Staff Report, and with the additional conditions: 1. The sign fasteners exposed to weather shall be stainless steel. 2. The masonry anchors for the new sign shall utilize existing connections. SECOND: Robert Imboden AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, and Anne McDermott NOES: ABSENT: RECUSED: Craig Wheeler

7 Page 7 of 11 New Agenda Item: (4) DRC No Cost Plus World Market Façade and Metal Screen Band for tenant sign A proposal to modify the exterior façade of the Cost Plus World Market tenant space and add new signage area for a tenant at the Village at Orange. Staff Contact: Chad Ortlieb, , cortlieb@cityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. The applicant who was present for this project was Deborah Loayza. Chair Fox wanted clarification from Mr. Ortlieb as to the reason the sign was before the Committee for approval, asking if it was for the way the sign was mounted and the screen it was mounted on. Mr. Ortlieb said yes and also it was for a very minor amendment to the existing sign program. Ms. Loayza gave an additional explanation of the design elements of the proposal. Public Comments: Chair Fox opened the item to the Public for comments. There were none. Chair Fox opened the item to the Committee for discussion. The DRC commented on the following: Concerned with removing the trellis and replacing it with wall pack lighting. It did not seem like an enhancement. Noted the wall on the north end of the mall by Sears was more animated. Suggested using something on the north wall to give it more interest like a green screen to break up the wall. Suggested adding pots and life style graphics on the wall. Asked how the wall packs would light the walking surface. Wanted the lighting to be coordinated with the life style graphics. Suggested putting lights in the palm trees but was informed by the applicant that those may be owned by Walmart. Questioned if the sign height would be mounted at the same height on the new building or would it be higher. Asked if the Eldorado stone was the same that was used on other portions of the mall. Assumed the exposed conduits would be removed from the wall as well as the corrugated metal on the north wall. Confirmed the new slab in the new area being enclosed would be level with the slab of the store front. It appeared the pavers sloped down at the store front and wanted to make clear that when those pavers are adjusted upward that they use the same or matching pavers so there would be no new patterns. Questioned the proposed roofline height and how it compared to the entrance to the mall. Noted it was strange to have it higher than the mall entrance. Asked if the stone sample was the actual scale of the material.

8 Page 8 of 11 Commented that it would have been helpful to know the height of the sign compared to what it was now. Questioned the quality of the construction and noted that it could be better. Expressed satisfaction with the upgrade that would match the rest of the mall and, since it was a unique entrance to the mall, it needed something different. Concerned that the lights on the north elevations should be coordinated and requested that to come back to the Committee for approval. Asked where the enhanced paving was for the entire mall and was informed by the application that it was just by the actual mall entrance. Noted there would be no changes to the exterior paving except for the increase in the elevation at the store door. Vice Chair Wheeler made a motion to approve DRC No , Cost Plus World Market Façade and Metal Screen Band for tenant sign, based on the findings and conditions listed in the Staff Report, and with the additional conditions: 1. The finished result shall have no exposed conduit on the exterior. 2. The breezeway between the Walmart and the Cost Plus shall have new life style panels installed similar to what was installed near the Home Goods store. 3. Elevation study of the revised north elevation shall be returned to the Committee prior to the issuance of building permits showing how the lighting and life style panels will be coordinated. 4. Care shall be taken when adjusting the grade of the existing pavers in front of the new store front. 5. No new paver materials or patterns shall be introduced. 6. Where the trellis is to be removed, the Committee shall see the patch work repair along with the pots with plants on the north wall and it shall come back to the Committee for approval. 7. The corrugated roof parapet elements shall be removed. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Tim McCormack Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Anne McDermott, and Craig Wheeler

9 Page 9 of 11 STUDY SESSION; (5) Review, discuss and receive comments on the treatment of accessory structures in the Old Towne Historic District. Staff Contact: Marissa Moshier, mmoshier@cityoforange.org, (714) DRC Action: No action. Marissa Moshier, Associate Planner-Historic Preservation, presented a project overview with the Staff Report. She said staff has developed text for policy to formalize how they are making a determination on whether or not the accessory structure is historic or not, and revisions to the Design Standards to specifically address the preservation of accessory structures, about relocation, and reconstruction along with recommendations for designs of brand new accessory structures. Chair Fox opened the Study Session for discussion. Determination of Historic Significance for Accessory Structures Jeff Frankel, representing OTPA, commented that initially when the inventory was taken it was done by volunteers. He was glad there would be some standards for accessory structures. In the proposed new text, did not see historic significance specifically called out. There were places in which the language could include the fact that the accessory structure potentially possesses historical significance. Ms. Moshier explained that she would like to work into the text the concept of hierarchy on the property. The accessory structure could be contributing to the significance of the property as a whole and could be a character defining feature of the site. Noted that once the primary structure was gone, it would be a difficult argument that the accessory structure had historic significance. Mr. Frankel wanted clarification if the accessory structure could not be significant on its own if the original structure no longer existed. Questioned whether the criteria should say that assessment was needed if the structure appeared to be more than 50 years old, rather than constructed before 1940 Ms. Moshier explained that staff could request a historic assessment for anything over 50 years of age within the historic district under the General Plan. Noted if the structure was less than 50 years old, it would be difficult to make an argument of significance under the historic context for Old Towne. If it was greater than 50 years, it should be reviewed. Ms. Moshier said when projects that come in on Old Towne homes, staff informally takes a look and makes an assessment based on the historic context statement for Old Towne that they are working with. Noted that there are no aerial maps for 1940, just for 1938 and 1947, so the date of construction was necessarily an estimate. Wanted a way to let the public know that just because the historic property survey form (DPR) on file with the City doesn t mention the accessory structure that does not mean that the accessory structure was not significant. Wanted the Design Standards to say specifically

10 Page 10 of 11 something like your historic property report may not include accessory structures that may indeed be historic. Mr. Frankel thought the next update to the survey should include the accessory structures. Ms. Moshier stated that staff was updating the architectural style sheets for Old Towne and have developed a handout specifically for accessory structures that can be provided to the public. Wanted to know if there was an architectural style sheet for single wall construction/worker housing. Suggested the City take a survey of the few examples of true carriage house barns structures for documentation purposes. Mr. Frankel said OTPA would be happy to do that. Mr. Garcia explained that the planners now are very cognizant of the historic district. Revised Design Standards for Accessory Structures Mr. Frankel noted how Chapman University was a good example of how to treat the accessory structures and maintain the standards. Questioned if currently staff allows work on accessory structures to be included as part of a Mills Act Contract. Ms. Moshier said yes. Mr. Frankel questioned if someone should be required to restore a substandard garage. Recommended encouraging people to add a shed to the rear of a garage to accommodate a modern car. Suggested on Section 1.a. on Page 4 of the staff report, removing the words for primary buildings. Asked if there was a way to encourage people to use garages which do not comply with the parking standards. Ms. Moshier explained there was an existing provision in the zoning code that allows single family residences to add up to 500 square feet or 25% of existing square footage, whichever is greater. Suggested exploring the options for increasing that requirement. Suggested carports as an alternative which provide covered parking but do not substantially change the accessory structure. Wanted to be clear that adding a second story to an accessory story was not allowed and how adding a small single story addition to an accessory structure might be suitable. Might want to encourage other storage spaces or sheds to free up the garage for cars. Mr. Frankel voiced concern with a shed becoming a guest house. Noted that to make the small historic homes viable, allowing functions in accessory structures would keep the impact to the historic resource from additions to a minimum. Mr. Frankel would want a deed restriction where you could not rent an accessory structure out permanently. Suggested replacing the word replicates on 1.a.i. on Page 4 of the staff report to compatible or appropriate. Thought the mention of the garage doors should be further down the list, having the issues of preserving and rehabilitating higher on the list. Questioned if new garages should be single car garages as worded on 2.e. on Page 6 of the staff report. Mr. Frankel stated that relocation of accessory structures should not be encouraged and should be limited. No action required

11 Page 11 of 11 ADJOURNMENT: Vice Chair Wheeler made a motion to adjourn to the next regularly scheduled Design Review Committee meeting on Wednesday, April 6, SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Tim McCormack Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Anne McDermott, and Craig Wheeler Meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m.

CITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES FINAL

CITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES FINAL Committee Members Present: Robert Imboden Chair Tim McCormack Carol Fox Anne McDermott July 19, 2017 Staff in Attendance: Jennifer Le, Principal Planner