Loading...
2011-04-06 DRC Final Minutes CITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES - FINAL April 6, 2011 Committee Members Present: Bill Cathcart Tim McCormack Craig Wheeler Joe Woollett Committee Members Absent: None Staff in Attendance: Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner Robert Garcia, Associate Planner Sharon Penttila, Recording Secretary Administrative Session — 5:00 P.M. Vice Chair Woollett opened the Administrative Session at 5:06 p.m. Planning Manager, Leslie Aranda Roseberry, stated there were no changes to the Agenda and there was no policy or procedural information to impart. The Committee members reviewed the minutes from the March 2, 2011 meeting. Changes and corrections were noted. Vice Chair Woollett stated he had been late to a previous meeting and had missed the discussion regarding the new Design Review Committee format. He presumed the changes came from legal action that had been taken as a result of an act or decision that had been made by the DRC. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated one of the complaints from OTPA was that it was not clear when the DRC made "Findings" on their decisions, and specifically on the Westenhofer Residence. They were able to piece the decision together from the minutes and that had taken care of that situation. It had come to light that there were clarity issues. With the Planning Commission the Resolution was set out for them and what the facts in support of the Findings were. The Findings being the conclusion, when approved that they found the architecture to be internally consistent, but that was not enough. There needed to be more, such as "the materials were compatible because it was stucco with an additional material," or "the colors were compatible because they were all earth tones." This was needed in order to indicate how the conclusion was arrived at; to show their work. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated a Resolution was not needed for the DRC, so basically a format was provided. For example, with the first Agenda Item (and not to discuss the project), the format provided information for the Findings that were necessary for a project. In Old Towne or otherwise, or not a residence, there were other Findings to be addressed. Vice Chair Woollett stated there was an additional paragraph that addressed what the Findings might be. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 6, 2011 Page 2 of 22 Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated she had written a Staff Report with Senior Planner, Chad Ortlieb, and she had set out how she felt the project met the Findings. When it got down to the deliberation and determination for a project, the DRC Members could indicate, for example if they agreed 100% it could be noted that a project was approved with conditions and based on the Findings in the Staff Report. If there was something found to be disagreeable, an approval could be made with an exception to a particular sentence or that language could be stricken if it would not work. It was a matter of how the Findings were arrived at. A few sentences would whittle down how the DRC Members had come to a conclusion. If Findings could not be met it would be a different decision. Committee Member McCormack asked what Ms. Aranda Roseberry meant when she stated "make the Findings ?" Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated it was a statement in support of the Findings. The bottom line conclusion on a project, if approved, was to make a statement of why the project met the Finding. What was needed was how the DRC Members arrived at that point and to note what supported the conclusion of approval. If a project was architecturally internally consistent, that would be indicated. She had given them a sort of head start and if there was nothing to add, that was okay; it could just be indicated that the approval of a project was based on the Findings listed. Committee Member McCormack asked if additional conditions could be added? Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated conditions could be added. The conditions would not necessarily mean that the Findings were not met. They were just additional conditions. For example, if a project was being recommended for approval and the DRC wanted to see the landscape plan return, that was fine; it would just be another approval. Vice Chair Woollett stated a project could be approved with a condition added that would allow the project to comply with the Findings. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated an approval could not be made unless they all agreed with the facts that supported the Findings. Chair Cathcart joined the meeting and stated he had changes to the minutes and would hold those over to the end of the agenda. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated with the new format Staff was attempting to provide a format that would allow the DRC Members to address the Findings and the reasons for a conclusion. They were the Findings of the DRC and if the members had not agreed on them, they could be changed. Committee Member Woollett stated on the LaVeta project he thought that they had justified their Findings. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated it was not in a nice neat little package, and in the end they had to go through the project and pick them out. The new format would allow the Findings to be more City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 6, 2011 Page 3 of 22 visible and additions and deletions could be made in a motion and that information could be captured in the minutes. Committee Member McCormack asked, regarding the comment "nice neat little package ", if that information would be found under Staff Recommendations and Findings in the last paragraph? Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated that was correct. On a Planning Commission Resolution for a CUP there were four Findings that had to be made that was written into the Resolution. There were many layers and a sort of test that the project had to meet. They had spoken about the format and what was needed internally; she had taken that opportunity to re- format the Staff Report and had toyed with it a lot and she had wanted it to be a little more concise and easier for the Planner to think through and easier for the reader to figure out. One of the things that had been done with the Planning Commission's Staff Report was in the analysis and statement of issues section she had numbered out and titled the issues. In the past it had all been lumped together in a dissertation of concerns; but now if there was an issue, for example, with the paint colors, that was Topic 1, Topic 2 was the landscaping, and so forth. It would be different for every project. She had asked the Planners to narrow down the information into bullets rather than one long paragraph with a project description. It took a lot more effort to come up with a descriptive paragraph; rather than stating a project consisted of 2,000 square feet, landscaping, and trees, it would be better to just hit the high points and to remember that the plans were available for details. If she was on the DRC she would lay the plans out and review them, read the Staff Report, and be able to quickly know what she was looking for. Because the DRC Members were architects or landscape architects they were always figuring out something that the Planners might not have picked up on, such as lining up of the windows with the floor plan. It was a summary, a cheat sheet allowed for the DRC Members to keep it concise. There were some really good writers on the team and she hated to tell them to stop writing, but in order to put together something more concise and not have to spend hours on a Staff Report, it would be formatted into bullets. Committee Member McCormack asked if she was referring to the bullets in "evaluation criteria ?" Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated in reviewing the Agenda for the LaVeta Service Station on page 2, the project description was written in bullets, the existing site was written in bullets, and that was what she was speaking to. To get the description in a bullet format instead of creating long paragraphs. It took much longer to create the paragraphs. Vice Chair Woollett stated with their comments they could follow the same discipline. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated that would be helpful. For the particular Item that had been questioned, she had gone back and reviewed the minutes and listened to the tapes because the minutes had not lined up with what they had remembered and what the motion ended up as. The motion was made and then it had gotten lost by the time the vote was taken and she had to go back and reassimilate that. It was a long- winded reason of why the Staff Report was re- formatted and she had made a note to contact Committee Member Woollett, but she had forgotten. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 6, 2011 Page 4 of 22 Vice Chair Woollett stated he had reviewed the Staff Report and Agenda and had realized that there had been a change. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated things evolved over time and at the previous DRC Meeting conditions had been missed due to the format and the reason that they had received the separate memo. Vice Chair Woollett stated it bothered him that included in the Staff Report there were conditions that were coming from various departments, which he recognized were conditions that showed up on his projects that included all the pet things that a specific department liked to include and it bothered him that the DRC was being asked to approve a project in light of those conditions. It was conditions that addressed items that were not a part of the DRC's purview. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated when the DRC was the final acting body that was when the conditions would be included; and they could only condition something if it was discretionary. Vice Chair Woollett stated it would allow them, if they found something to be in contradiction with the design objectives, which would be valuable as there had been several instances when a condition that had come from engineering that appeared to be discretionary from their point of view, created a problem with the project's design. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated that was found on occasion and they wanted to ensure that there was a link between the impact of the project and to whatever the department was asking for. Sometimes they would receive a request from a department asking an applicant to do "x, y, and z" and she would ask why: for example, why would an applicant need to upgrade a water line. She would ask for a reason as to the need for an upgrade based on the project. There had to be a link. If there was a condition that was in direct conflict with a design objective it might be better to continue the item and ask the applicant to come back in order to allow the Staff to review the project. Vice Chair Woollett stated the thing that came to mind was when the engineering department required that driveway aprons be removed on an Old Towne project with a driveway removal and the OTPA had not wanted removal as they were historic. The DRC had ended up taking the requirement out. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated in Old Towne there were special situations; and she was not certain if it was a written standard that each residential lot would have no more than one curb cut. When someone wanted to add a circular driveway which would cause more than one curb cut they would not be allowed to do that. She was not certain if that was a standard. Vice Chair Woollett stated that could be a standard that was in conflict with the Old Towne Design Guidelines. Committee Member McCormack stated there was an example on a project that was coming up and he would point that out later as it was a very good point. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 6, 2011 Page 5 of 22 Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to adjourn the Administrative Session of the Design Review Committee Meeting. SECOND: Tim McCormack AYES: Bill Cathcart, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. Administrative Session adjourned at 5:29 p.m. Regular Session - 5:30 P.M. ROLL CALL: All 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 was none. All matters that are announced as Consent Items are considered to be routine by the Design Review Committee and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of said items unless members of the Design Review Committee, staff or the p ublic request specific items to be removed from the Consent Items for separate action. CONSENT ITEMS: (1) APPROVAL OF MINUTES: March 2, 2011 Committee Member McCormack made a motion to approve the minutes from the March 2, 2011 Design Review Committee meeting with the changes and corrections noted during the Administrative Session. SECOND: Joe Woollett AYES: Bill Cathcart, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 6, 2011 Page 6 of 22 AGENDA ITEMS: Continued Items: (2) DRC No. 4471 -10 - LA VETA SERVICE STATION • A proposal to re -open an idle service station and bring the site into compliance with the current commercial development standards. The DRC has specifically requested to review the final elevations, landscape, and irrigation plans. • 1650 W. La Veta Avenue • Staff Contact: Chad Ortlieb, 714- 744 -7237, cortlieb(�i,)ci oforange.org • Building/Site Plans approved at September 1, 2010 DRC meeting • DRC Action: Final Determination Senior Planner, Chad Ortlieb, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Fred Cohen, address on file, stated he had nothing further to add. Public Comment None. Chair Cathcart opened the item to the Committee for discussion. Committee Member Wheeler stated he noticed the materials that were requested on the drawings for the building, but he had not noticed the change to the canopy. Mr. Cohen stated it would all be ACM. It would be the same as other Chevrons. Committee Member Wheeler asked about the column covers. Mr. Cohen stated it was also ACM. Committee Member Wheeler stated it was mostly plastic. Mr. Cohen stated it was metal with a plastic coating. Committee Member Woollett stated on the elevations, assuming that the paving was level, but it was not. Mr. Cohen stated it was level, only 1 -2% lower. Committee Member Woollett stated around the entrance door the paving would be close, but going around the building there would be a gap between the weep screed and the pavement. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 6, 2011 Page 7 of 22 Mr. Cohen stated the building would sit on a 4 -6" concrete pad. The footing would not be exposed. He asked if Committee Member Woollett was referring to the curb around the canopy? Committee Member Woollett stated "no," he was referring to the bottom portion of the building. Committee Member McCormack stated it was the area where the stucco ended. Mr. Cohen stated the stucco ended at the raised pad. Committee Member Woollett asked what happened between the paving and the weep screed? The weep screed was in place to allow any moisture in the stucco to drip out and to keep any water from the pavement from wicking up and deteriorating the stucco. Mr. Cohen stated the area would be painted. Committee Member McCormack pointed out the area on the plans. Mr. Cohen stated the area would just be painted. Committee Member Woollett stated that area would generally have stucco on it. Unless the applicant made an issue of it, it would probably have stucco put on it. Mr. Cohen asked if the stucco would run all the way down? Committee Member Woollett stated "to the paving." Committee Member Wheeler stated he believed it called for exposed concrete on the plans and they could just leave it that way. Committee Member Woollett stated it would just be bare. Committee Member Wheeler stated he thought that was a better solution. Mr. Cohen stated the area would be painted. Committee Member Wheeler stated that was okay, it was normal. When there was a grade change the space would increase or decrease. Committee Member Woollett asked if the area was painted would it be the same color as the stucco? Mr. Cohen stated yes. Committee Member McCormack stated on the planting it appeared that everything the DRC had asked the applicant to do had been done. He asked for an explanation on Condition No. 15 which stated the applicant shall cut back approximately three feet of landscaping on each side of City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 6, 2011 Page 8 of 22 the landscape area that currently existed and also on the front of the pump island; he stated there was a light there now and he asked for some clarification? Mr. Ortlieb reviewed the plans and stated that it was not something that came from the last DRC meeting. Committee Member McCormack stated it was from the September 1, 2010 information. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated on the minutes there was discussion of pulling out Condition Nos. 15 and 16. Committee Member Wheeler stated during the previous discussion it had been stated to modify Condition No. 16 and remove Condition No. 15; that was from the minutes and if they still existed they would need to make a note to modify those. Mr. Ortlieb stated they had included a scaled down list of conditions on the Staff Report and he was not certain they were able to open up the previous approval, as that action was taken, and not agendized for the current meeting. He believed they were left with the conditions before them and the conditions for the prior approval would stand. Committee Member Wheeler stated it was approved with the discussion to remove those items. Mr. Ortlieb stated the discussion was there, but he was not certain it was contained in the motion. Committee Member Wheeler stated on Page No. 14 on the minutes, it was a suggestion to remove Condition Nos. 15 and 16. Committee Member Woollett stated it was an important suggestion. Mr. Ortlieb stated if that was the intent of the DRC and it was now being clarified from the prior action, they would have merit to remove those conditions if that was what was now being determined. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated what she would recommend and what she had thought the motion had been was to remove those conditions. They could now suggest to an applicant to remove conditions as it was the determination of the DRC as to what conditions went with the project. It may have been suggested by the maker of the motion to discuss if they should be removed. When she read the minutes and listened to the tapes she thought it was part of the motion. Committee Member Woollett stated there might be a reason for those conditions that had come from another department that they had not been aware of. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated it may have come from another department, such as Public Works. Committee Member Woollett stated they were at a place where someone had made a determination that they had thought was important, but the DRC was suggesting re- evaluating that suggestion to determine whether it was necessary. It was important to them. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 6, 2011 Page 9 of 22 Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated the discussion from Staff's perspective would be if there was sufficient ADA accessibility to the site. Committee Member McCormack stated currently it was 1' shy of accessibility, and he had brought that up previously so there would not be an issue with the ADA advocacy groups. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated the site was being intensified due to the convenience store aspect of the business; there were thresholds in buildings as to when a certain threshold was met then there was the need for ADA compliance and access points; it was not something the Planners worked with on a day -to -day basis. Much of that was handled in the building aspect and through plan check; there might be a required change when the project went through those phases. Mr. Cohen stated the plans had been approved through the Building Division. Ms. Aranda Roseberry asked which set of plans had been approved? Mr. Cohen stated the plans before them. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated prior to the Staff Planner signing off on the project, that would need to be checked. Committee Member McCormack stated he had wanted to bring up that point to ensure everything was in compliance. He felt everything that they had asked for had been done. There were some detail points and there was a consistent issue with 24" box Palm trees. They tended to be on the small size and not really a tree yet; they were generally specified as brown trunk. On some Palm species the fronds sprouted from the bottom and were not really a tree yet. They had always made a point of having a specified brown trunk height. Chair Cathcart stated there was also a difference in size with a variance in 24" planters. The 24" box was the same, however, the plant inside the box varied in height. The reference in brown trunk height would be a better way to call out the Palm trees. Committee Member McCormack stated there were only six trees and they were in places where they would not be in anyone's way. Typically they would want a Palm up in the air and the minimum he would want was 15% the Palms tended to be smaller. Mr. Cohen stated the project had already cost him twice as much as anticipated; he had the option of taking everything out. Chair Cathcart stated Queen Palms were not as expensive. Mr. Cohen stated at the last meeting which was September 1, 2010 and now they were at April 5, 2011 and the service station was sitting idle. He had just paid his property tax and the property was not being used. If the cost was another $1,000 he would just have to go along as he could not afford to have the station being idle for another six months because the trunk of a tree was not right. He wanted the DRC to tell him what to do. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 6, 2011 Page 10 of 22 Committee Member McCormack stated the landscape architect on the project should have told him what he was going to get. Typically the landscape architect would state that a tree would be really, really small and that might not be what the applicant wanted. If another tree choice was made he would not have an issue with that. With Palm trees they had issues with their size. The applicant could choose another tree. The recommendation was not being made to get more money from the applicant. Mr. Cohen stated he wanted to rephrase himself; whatever it took to get it done he would do what was needed. Committee Member McCormack stated it was the applicant's choice to go with a Queen Palm or King Palm tree or another tree. He reviewed the plans with the applicant. Another issue he had was on the vine spacing on the wall; when a wall was to be covered the distance should be 8' to 9' and the plans noted 18'. What would happen was that there would be a vine then space and there would be a scalloped effect on the wall; what the DRC had spoken about was to have the whole wall covered. It would affect the overall look of the wall. Another item was that for shredded bark it needed to read 2" instead of 1 ". On the irrigation plan the zones were good, but there were some technical issues with the legend. It was a 4' planter lengthwise with 8' throws on it, typically a side strip nozzle would be needed to spray that zone and there would be even coverage. It was important due to the "hedge design" of the project. If one shrub got more water than the others it would look terrible. The technical part of the irrigation plan needed to match the intent of the planting plan. There was a way to make changes without changing too much and it was a matter of switching nozzles out. There was a call -out for the hedge and if the plan was implemented the way it was the vines on the wall would not have enough water. He recommended to use a 12" pop -up or to switch the location to allow watering of the vine or the shrub. On the side strips it was the same issue and the legend needed to be called -out. Mr. Cohen asked if they could switch to bubblers? Committee Member McCormack stated it was more of a problem with bubblers if the grade was not level. Chair Cathcart stated the bubblers would not flow evenly across it. Committee Member McCormack stated there were zones that needed 12" pop -ups. The other thing he noticed was there were no AB 1821 calculations on it. Mr. Cohen stated they had not needed the counts as the project had less than 2,500 square feet of landscape area. Mr. Ortheb stated that was his understanding as well. Committee Member McCormack made a motion to approve DRC No. 4471 -10, LaVeta Service Station, subject to the Staff's Recommendations and Findings contained in the Staff Report and with the following additional conditions: City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 6, 2011 Page 11 of 22 1. Decrease the vine spacing. 2. Change the Palm trees to a 15' brown trunk. 3. Change the shrub planning detail to 2" deep mulch. 4. To modify the irrigation: revise the irrigation legend to show 12" pop -ups and correct side and end strip nozzle locations; and to show 12" pop -ups at the corner of LaVeta and Bedford in the monument sign planting area. SECOND: Joe Woollett AYES: Bill Cathcart, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 6, 2011 Page 12 of 22 (3) DRC No. 4495 -10 — CHAPMAN PLAZA • A proposal to repaint two of the freestanding buildings and to review the trees that were already replaced in the parking lot. The proposal also includes changing out the hedges and two existing trees in the front (south) setback. • 4501 -4637 E. Chapman Avenue • Staff Contact: Robert Garcia, 714 - 744 -7231, rgarcia(abcit ooforange.org • Continued from DRC meeting of November 17, 2010 • DRC Action: Final Determination Associate Planner, Robert Garcia, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Michael Israelsky, address on file, stated he was happy to be present and hoped to get the project finalized. It was nice to have an owner that wanted to improve a property vs. letting maintenance be deferred until the economy was better. He had heard nothing but good things regarding the appearance of the center. With all the problems and trip hazards of the Ficus trees, and having those removed as a result was a good solution. They had heard comments from the head of the English Department at Chapman University telling them how good the property looked, and it just needed a paint job. He was available for questions. Public Comment None. Chair Cathcart opened the item to the Committee for discussion. Committee Member McCormack stated his whole thing was the root rot issue, and the Tipuana was not on the list. He had experience with that tree and it was a pretty vital tree and if it wanted to survive it could. He saw the letter, but had an inquiry. He had done a little sketch, which he shared with the applicant, there was the Ficus tree canopy which was 20' and there were lots of roots and a 4' tree well where the tree was removed. The letters stated that 90% of the roots were removed. Typically the roots went all the way out to the drip line and if 90% of the roots were removed then the asphalt would have been removed. He thought what happened was that in the 3' space all the roots that were there were removed, but it would not have been 90 %. The issue was that with a compacted parking lot it was difficult for the roots to be removed. He stated the new trees needed to be watched because the roots outside of the square probably still existed. Mr. Israelsky stated the existing tree well was dilapidated and where the trees were creating a trip hazard that was fixed and they probably had not gone further out for the roots. With the new plantings they had placed root guards so the roots would go down and there would not be further problems. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 6, 2011 Page 13 of 22 Committee Member McCormack stated if it was not done properly the whole zone theoretically was compacted with roots and they were basically putting a tree in a pot. Unless it was managed to be small it would blow over as there would not be enough root system to support it. Mr. Israelsky stated the way it had been explained to him was that the roots would be forced to go down before they spread. There was not a bottom to it. Chair Cathcart stated he agreed and that tree needed to be checked and dealt with if it showed stress. Mr. Israelsky stated he had gone by the property to check on the trees and he had taken some pictures. Some were doing better than others, but they were all growing. He wanted to stress that the building owners were proactive and wanted to make improvements. They would not let trees die. Committee Member McCormack stated the five year clock was ticking and time would tell if there was wear and tear there. He was putting it out there as it had potential to be a problem five years down the road. Chair Cathcart stated trees had a tough time in a parking lot with 95% compaction. Even if it was pure sand and they needed to be careful when the roots were packed. Mr. Israelsky stated he understood the problems with trees in parking lots. What had been happening in the parking lot were liability issues left and right and he appreciated the input and they would monitor the trees very closely. He felt they would still be involved 5 to 10 years from now. Mr. Garcia stated there could be a condition added that replacement of trees would be necessary if any trees were to become diseased or to die; it could be crafted into the motion. Committee Member McCormack made a motion to approve DRC No. 4495 -10, Chapman Plaza, subject to the Recommendations and Findings contained in the Staff Report, and with the following additional condition: 1. If the tree resource declined in health it would be addressed/replaced to its current state. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Bill Cathcart, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 6, 2011 Page 14 of 22 New Agenda Items: (4) DRC No. 4507 -10 — TUSKATELLA -PAD 4 BUILDING • A proposal to demolish the existing 2,681 square foot building and rebuild it, but setback from Tustin Street to accommodate future street widening. • 1300 N. Tustin Street • Staff Contact: Chad Ortlieb, 714 - 744 -7237, cortlieb(iDcityoforange.org • DRC Action: Final Determination Senior Planner, Chad Ortlieb, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Douglas Franz, address on file, stated there was a comment that he and Mr. Ortlieb had discussed and it was not part of the conditions, but part of the project description. He wanted to note that in the grading plan there were two Canary Pine trees and the wall would be a retaining wall with approximately 2' of earth. Due to drainage and the excavation of the site it would require removal of a tree and a portion of another tree. The roots of one tree would be uprooted where it could potentially be a hazard and the recommendation was to have the two trees removed. If replacement trees were required he was open to that recommendation. It was not part of the conditions, but was contained in the project description. Public Comment None. Chair Cathcart opened the item to the Committee for discussion. Chair Cathcart stated he was thrilled with what was going on there, as the building that was there was beyond tired. Committee Member Wheeler passed out two sheets of comments and stated there was no roof plan. It appeared that the tower elements would be surfaced on all four sides and the cornices would wrap all the way around. He had a picture of a project that had been approved with the backs of the towers that had not been finished. Mr. Franz stated the finish would go all the way around and the mechanical equipment would be contained in those towers to screen it. Committee Member Wheeler stated the columns looked a bit different than the Tuskatella columns. Mr. Franz stated they would be the same. Committee Member Wheeler stated one tower appeared to be a bit off - center. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 6, 2011 Page 15 of 22 Mr. Franz stated it was probably a drafting error. Committee Member Wheeler stated on the horizontal trim bands they ended at a 45- degree bend; and he was not certain how they would be terminated. If they wrapped around they would be visible. Mr. Franz explained the termination of the bands to Committee Member Wheeler on the drawings. Committee Member Wheeler reviewed the drawings with the applicant. Mr. Franz stated he had not seen a problem with it returning all of the way and stopping at the window as it was part of the same element and would be appropriate. He reviewed where the trim piece would die on the plans with Committee Member Wheeler. Committee Member Wheeler stated he suggested that he study it and to come up with something that he was happy with. On the plane that was the same plane as the pilaster below, but the window was set back and he was curious to know at what height the soffit was at. His guess was that the soffit would be in an area he pointed to on the plans. He suggested the applicant take a look at the area. There were different returns for column A, which returned to the building with an arch form, but the tower element returned with a rectangular form and why would they not be similar? Mr. Franz stated the intent was that the arch just wrapped on the element and the other element just stood on its own and the other as a square just returned back so it had a higher elevation. He had not seen an issue with returning it back as an archway. Committee Member Wheeler stated it could be returned straight and not have that. He suggested the applicant study that area of the plans and to see what they would end up with. There was a horizontal trim band that if looking at it from the straight elevation appeared to project further on one side as it had to wrap further around the pilasters on the north wall. It appeared odd to him and suggested that it cut out then came in again, to change it to give it more symmetry. There appeared to be a conflict with a door and the trim band and it would hit the door. Mr. Franz stated all that would come up with the construction drawings and they would catch those details. Committee Member Wheeler stated on the roof top mechanical equipment, he asked if that would be in the tower elements? Mr. Franz stated the intent was that the equipment would be behind the tower and there was a 10' and 7' parapet. On the other side it went from 1' to 4', and the intent was to place everything behind or in the tower. Committee Member Wheeler stated there were projects that had the intent of screening, but ended up somewhere else. There were some in Old Towne, and there was the Carl's Jr. that had exposed mechanical equipment. He suggested adding a condition. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 6, 2011 Page 16 of 22 Mr. Franz asked if there was a standard condition regarding roof top equipment? Mr. Ortlieb stated that was a function of the Municipal Code and they had applied that on a horizontal plane as far as plan check went, for commercial and industrial. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated if there was a particular viewpoint that the DRC was concerned about they could indicate that in a condition. It could be the sight line that the architect would study. Committee Member Wheeler stated the building would not be visible from a long ways away and it would need to be looked at from a low angle, and if the equipment could go in a tower that would be safe. Del Taco would be a good example or from Smart and Final. His final question was a landscape question and he asked if the site had the required number of trees? Mr. Ortlieb stated there was a section of the code that retained the tree count provisions and it was the commercial code section. One thing that differed on the project was that the parking lot retained a non - conforming situation and the site building perimeter had a tree count standard and he could not state if it met that code. He would need to take a look at that. Committee Member Woollett stated his observation was what had allowed them to do the project was that the parking lot was overly large, and they were able to shrink it back down to the required parking. He asked Mr. Ortlieb if the parking worked? Mr. Ortlieb stated the parking had been reviewed carefully and it had worked. Committee Member McCormack stated overall it looked good and he liked the plant palette and the design was simple and worked. In front of the elevation, he wanted to clarify the intent to cover the windows with Rosemary, as the Tuscan Blue Rosemary if left alone would grow 6' wide by 8' tall. He pointed it out on the plans and stated he was not certain if that was the intent to block the west sun. Mr. Franz stated the intent was for it to become a hedge; it was intended to be a low shrub at 3' or lower. It would be maintained that way. Committee Member McCormack stated he wanted to ensure the loop was closed and to keep the wording on the plans the same. "Crushed aggregate" would mean something different and was used under an asphalt roadway and "gravel mulch" was a more decorative material. The other thing was the pots and he was wondering if they would be on pedestals or if they would be just on the rocks? Landscape Architect, Scott Peterson, address on file, stated the idea was to have a platform that they would sit on in the rocks and it would wrap around the basin. Committee Member McCormack stated he was more concerned with the sloped area. He also questioned pot A, 36" diameter, Tuscan Imports; he had the same type of plant that the applicant was suggesting at his front door and it was about 30" max, and he was just wondering as it might City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 6, 2011 Page 17 of 22 not be strong enough to hold that pot. He wanted to throw that idea out there. His plant at home was in a 20 ", but in a 36" pot it might not look right. He stated coming from the coordination between the civil plan that showed a lot of construction notes that stated per landscape plans; one of them was trench and enclosure pad, permeable paver walkway and pervious concrete parking area, which typically would not go there. The landscape architect would not pick up on the area of permeable paving. He wanted to bring it up. Mr. Franz stated the civil engineer generally put notes that referred to everyone else. It was covered on the architectural plans. It would be coordinated with the civil drawings and the pavement call -outs would be addressed. Committee Member McCormack stated there was a detail, which he pointed to on the plans, and asked if it was getting all the roof water to percolate in that 3' zone? Mr. Franz stated it was a perforated pipe with gravel around it that all the drainage flowed out and into the gravel. The uprights were for higher level storm conditions if it needed to bubble up and out. It would not be visible as it would be below the landscaping. It was not a scaled drawing. Committee Member McCormack stated it appeared to be close to the surface and it could affect the planting and how the planting survived in heavy rain. It could become a maintenance issue. Chair Cathcart asked if Gene Estrada had reviewed the project? Mr. Ortlieb stated it had been reviewed and it was actually a voluntary measure on the applicant's part. Committee Member McCormack suggested that if it was voluntary, then to place it in an area where there was already gravel and it would be able to take more water. Mr. Franz stated the desire was to keep as much water away from the building. They could review that. Committee Member McCormack stated on Condition No. 17, "Water Division shall approve the type and location of the fire detection check valves "; they were known as the "red dragons ". He was curious as to where they would be hidden on the project, since the landscape would not be able to respond to the "red dragon." It was a fairly geometrical formal type approach. He would not know where they would place it. Chair Cathcart suggested it be placed at "Norms." Committee Member Woollett suggested that it be a condition. The City of Garden Grove states that the "red dragon" would be behind landscaping. Committee Member McCormack stated it would be nice to have it in the back where it would not be an issue; he would hate it to be located out front. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 6, 2011 Page 18 of 22 Mr. Franz stated the condition for the sprinklers came in after the packet had been submitted. He had discussed it with the Fire Department as they were at the square footage where it was not required; however, with the amendments and the new adoptions, with being over 3,000 square feet but under 5,000 square feet. That would be addressed and hidden with landscaping. They would explore where it would go and where the water would tie in with the street. It might be possible if coming off of Tustin to place it in that location; however, there was the limitation with a future right of way. They might be able to place it in the area where the trees would be removed and they would explore that with the Fire Department's requirements. Committee Member McCormack stated when those issues came up everyone wanted to screen it, and if they ever saw the movie "ET ", everyone knew ET was under the sheet and they were trying to hide him but he stood out like a sore thumb. The landscape screen could become equally oppressive to the design. They needed to work with the design. The other thing was the tree removal and he had not liked tree removal as a rule, but he had understood why it was needed. He asked if the building was being placed back in the same footprint of the old building? Mr. Franz stated the existing building had a bunch of concrete pavers as a slab and there was not a footing or foundation; it was amazing the building was still standing. There was no footing in there now. With OSHA Standards they needed a footing at a certain depth. There was a retaining wall and the building was being moved back. There was not accessible path or right of way to the building and they had to move it back to meet all the code requirements, which required the removal of the trees. They would be cutting and reconnecting to an area he pointed to on the plans. Committee Member McCormack stated they had to do what was necessary and it appeared it was a great prelude to a bigger picture of what was to happen later. The trees, as much as he loved them, would probably not fit in. Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve DRC No. 4507 -10, Tuskatella -Pad 4 Building, subject to the Conditions and Findings contained in the Staff Report, and the project seemed to be extremely compatible with the existing project, and with the following additional conditions: 1. The tower elements shall be finished on all four sides and the cornice would meet around all four sides of the towers. 2. The pre -cast concrete columns to be used on the south side shall match the columns that were currently used in the existing center. 3. The mechanical screening to be studied and drawings be provided to Staff to show how the mechanical equipment shall be screened and not visible from the nearby Del Taco. 4. There shall be coordination between the Civil and Landscape plans in regards to paving. 5. The words "crushed aggregate" to be changed to read: "gravel mulch" on the ground cover legend. 6. The pots A and B to be on pedestals for leveling. 7. The Landscape Architect shall coordinate and figure out potential different locations for key note No. 7, which was the permeable pipe. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 6, 2011 Page 19 of 22 8. The Fire Department's valve shall be screened with landscape consistent with the rest of the project landscape. SECOND: Joe Woollett AYES: Bill Cathcart, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 6, 2011 Page 20 of 22 (5) DRC No. 4531 -11 - GATEWAY APARTMENT HOMES (ARCHSTONE) • The applicant is requesting approval of modifications to the existing Archstone Gateway Sign Program. • 291 State College Boulevard • Staff Contact: Robert Garcia, 714 - 744 -7231, r a� rcia(&,cityoforange.org • DRC Action: Final Determination Associate Planner, Robert Garcia, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicants, Noel Davies and Tony Sclafani, addresses on file, were present to answer questions. Public Comment None. Chair Cathcart opened the item to the Committee for discussion. Committee Member Wheeler stated starting with page GOA, it was more of a landscape question, but on the monument sign on the corner that was being relocated there were four new Palms being planted, but had that meant that the three Palms that were there were being removed? Mr. Sclafani stated that was correct. The Palm trees that were 23' in height were being taken out and four new Palm trees at the same height were being brought in. They felt they would not get a good match and that was their statement corner; they wanted them all to match. Committee Member Wheeler stated he assumed the existing lights were being removed and on page G2 it looked as if on the cross section note #11 should be note #10 as it referred to the stone. The important thing was that it matched what was there now so it needed to be clear. He was curious why the conduit was running up the exterior and back side of the sign on one sign and on the other sign it was running up through the interior of the footing? Mr. Davies stated one was a whole new sign with a new footing. The one on the corner with the Palm trees was entirely new with a new base being poured and they had the ability to run the power up through the sign. Committee Member Woollett stated on the sign it was a face panel with cutout letters and asked if it was a push- through? Mr. Davies stated that was correct and the reason for that type was that during the day it looked a bit more substantial. Committee Member McCormack asked, referencing G2, if on the sign with the existing base was there a way to put the conduit behind the veneer? City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 6, 2011 Page 21 of 22 Mr. Scalfani stated there would be a new cap. They could put it behind that and there would also be shrubs to screen it. Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve DRC No. 4531 -11, Gateway Apartment Homes (Archstone), subject to the Conditions and the Findings contained in the Staff Report and with the additional condition: 1. The stone veneer on the signs shall match the existing stone on the rest of the project, for color and style. SECOND: Joe Woollett AYES: Bill Cathcart, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 6, 2011 Page 22 of 22 Chair Cathcart noted his changes to the minutes from the Design Review Committee meeting of March 2, 2011. ADJOURNMENT: Chair Cathcart made a motion to adjourn to the next regular scheduled Design Review Committee meeting on Wednesday, April 20, 2011. SECOND: Tim McCormack AYES: Bill Cathcart, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. Meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m.