Loading...
2013-04-03 DRC Final Minutes CITY OF ORANGE (� DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES - FINAL April 3, 2013 Committee Members Present: Carol Fox Robert Imboden Tim McCormack Craig Wheeler Joe Woollett Committee Members Absent: None Staff in Attendance: David Khorram, Chief Building Official Dan Ryan, Historic Preservation Planner Doris Nguyen, Associate Planner Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary Administrative Session — 5:00 P.M. Chair Fox opened the Administrative Session at 5:07 p.m. Chief Building Official, David Khorram, stated there were no changes to the Agenda. He stated there were two projects that the City of Orange had put in for the American Planning Association award; one was the Depot Specific Plan and the other was a Code Enforcement and neighborhood related project involving a home improvement in which the Mayor was involved and the project name was Neighbors Helping Neighbors. The two projects were submitted to APA and the City had been notified that one of the two projects was going to win the award. The award program would be held Wednesday, May 8, from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. at Orange County Mining Company. If the Committee Members were interested in attending, although the City could not cover the charges, the Members were invited. He would send the information flier to the Committee Members. The Committee Members reviewed the meeting minutes from the Design Review Committee meeting of March 20, 2013. Changes and corrections were noted. Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to adjourn the Administrative Session of the Design Review Committee meeting. SECOND: Tim McCormack AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. Administrative Session adjourned at 5:24 p.m. d City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for April 3, 2013 Page 2 of 26 Regular Session - 5:30 P.M. ROLL CALL: All 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: March 20, 2013 Committee Member Imboden made a motion to approve the minutes from the Design Review Committee meeting of March 20, 2013, with the changes and corrections noted during the Administrative Session. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: Carol Fox ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for April 3, 2013 Page 3 of 26 AGENDA ITEMS: Continued Items: (2) DRC No. 4663 -12 — SANTANA RESIDENCE • A proposal to make exterior changes to a contributing 1913 Craftsman Bungalow, including front & rear porch modifications, deck railing, enlarge roof dormer, and replacement of exterior features. • 343 S. Cambridge Street, Old Towne Historic District • Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, 714 - 744 -7224, dryan@cityoforange.org • DRC Preliminary Review: February 2, 2013 • DRC Action: Final Determination Historic Preservation Planner, Dan Ryan, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Kim Santana, address on file, stated they took the advice from the DRC. I Public Comment Jeff Frankel, address on file, representing the OTPA, stated it was great to see that the property was being rehabilitated after years of neglect. It appeared that the project was going in the right direction and all issues had been addressed, except for the relocation of the two rear windows on the rear elevation. If he remembered correctly, the recommendation was to keep all windows in the original location and he had not read anything in the Staff Report regarding that and it would meet the Standards. Other than that, everything looked really good. It was refreshing to see a project go forward that had not included an increase in FAR. Chair Fox opened the item to the Committee for discussion. Committee Member Imboden stated he was confused and perhaps he was reading the plans wrong or reading the Staff Report incorrectly. But what he was reviewing had not followed what was being proposed. The applicant was proposing to keep the three porch windows in place; however, the drawings showed the windows being changed. Mr. Frankel had just brought up the change to the rear windows, and he had not found that in the Staff Report. It was not so much a discrepancy, but something he would want more clarification on was the notation to restore the original door and window openings and there were no call outs for those. He would have wanted to have a photo of the proposed and an enlarged elevation that showed what the condition would be. On the one half column placed against the exterior wall on the porch, he questioned whether it was drawn correctly as it appeared to be slid into the corner of the porch. The railing was noted as being moved in from the front edge and was centered on the door opening; however, it I 41111r- had not appeared centered or moved in. He was confused on the Staff Report. Mr. Ryan stated that was what the applicant was asked to do. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for April 3, 2013 C Page 4 of 26 C ommittee Member Imboden stated it had not appeared that it was being presented in that manner. Applicant, Michael Williams, address on file, stated on the rear three windows, because it appeared that at some time the rear entrance was a porch as there was a door that was further in, and at some point in time it had become a useable space for the owners. When the homeowners bought the home they interpreted that space as useable space and the green board was being used for the bathroom addition just behind the wall, behind the old mud room or rear entry porch. In the previous meeting there had been discussion between two of the Committee Members about manipulating the interior wall in order to meet one of the mulliens of the window, but he had trouble with that layout. Instead of having three four -pane glass windows, he felt it appropriate to have two windows with six panes to allow for a center mullien in which the new interior wall could terminate into and reduce the impact of the windows. This would be the best solution without creating a real headache on the interior. Committee Member Wheeler stated he thought there had been more flexibility on that wall space. Mr. Williams stated no, it was the same; there was a refrigerator on that wall. He thought the proposal was a creative way to keep the windows in the bathroom and service porch. Committee Member Wheeler asked for information on the window type? Mr. Williams stated the existing windows were an older French -style window with bars on each one. They appeared to be original windows. Chair Fox stated on the drawing there was a bit of wall between the last service porch window and the one 6 x 2.0 window; on the elevation there showed no distance between them. The Committee Members reviewed the plans with the applicant. Mr. Williams stated in the bathroom further to the south that window would be relocated above a new toilet, but currently they butted against each other in the existing floor plan. Chair Fox stated the elevation was drawn inaccurately and showed the window further away from the porch windows. Mr. Ryan stated the plan showed the three original windows. Committee Member Imboden stated he recalled during the previous discussion that there had been a suggestion of moving away from the existing wall with a window between the service porch and the bathroom. He asked if that suggestion had been explored at all? Mr. Williams stated yes, in detail, and it just would not close the bathroom off completely from the mud room, and it reduced the ability to maximize the space. He had really tried every different way. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for April 3, 2013 Page 5 of 26 Committee Member Imboden stated he was having a problem with the proportion of the windows. It was quite peculiar both for the period and what a screen porch would have that was later enclosed; that was where he was finding it odd. Chair Fox stated she was having the same issue with the proportion of the windows changing and she would be more inclined to have the center window removed, from the three -part windows and preserve the outer windows and actually fill the space in with some vertical boards as would have been done historically. It would keep the situation in proper proportion. People could look at the back side of that and see the evolution of construction. Committee Member Imboden stated he would agree with that. Ms. Santana stated she liked that idea. Mr. Williams stated they were following the direction from the previous meeting and he was doing the best that they could. Mr. Ryan asked what material would they want to fill in that area with? Chair Fox stated with the use of vertical boards, similar to what was below that space. Committee Member Imboden asked if there was an intent to replace the door? The door was drawn as a two -panel door with glazing and the existing was three panels with glazing. Ms. Santana stated the existing door would be used. The door had repairs made to it, because the foundation had moved and the door had been chopped off at the top and it had been repaired. Committee Member Imboden stated that notation should be on the plans. He asked if the column on the front porch was truly being applied over what existed? Chair Fox asked if he was referring to the one on the wall? Committee Member Imboden stated yes. Mr. Williams stated during the previous meeting they had proposed a half pillar on the wall and Committee Member Wheeler had felt that was inappropriate to have a half pillar and suggested a straight 1 x 8 corner board and that was the direction that was followed. Committee Member Wheeler stated there was another post in the middle, but it had not appeared on the elevations. The floor plans showed what appeared as a post and another post in the middle. It was on the proposed first floor, floor plan sheet 8A -11. Committee Member Woollett stated they would not need that post. Chair Fox agreed. The applicants reviewed the plans. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for April 3, 2013 Page 6 of 26 Mr. Williams stated when an existing floor plan was drawn, it was a reflection of what existed and it appeared that there was a 4" x 6" that was not original to the home and something that was drawn and not removed. Committee Member Wheeler stated the front porch columns should be from the elevations and not the plan. Mr. Williams stated that would be correct. Committee Member Imboden stated, going back to the questions he had, the Staff Report indicated that a half column would be there, but what he understood as proposed was not a half column but a corner wrap. He had not recalled the discussion about that and asked why they would be wrapping the corner. It had not appeared to be a typical treatment of the house. Mr. Williams stated a half column was proposed on the original set that was submitted before the DRC. He was advised to change it to a corner wrap and that's the reason the new proposal showed the corner wrap. Committee Member Imboden stated he had not recalled that suggestion. The Committee Members reviewed the plans. C Committee Member Wheeler stated what he thought they had spoken about was to bring a trim board the same width as the beams, so it would not be just resting on the siding. Chair Fox stated that was what she recalled, and it was not a wrap. Committee Member Imboden stated it was just to catch the rail and the header across. Mr. Williams asked if his drawing conveyed what the DRC wanted him to do? Committee Member Wheeler stated the plans showed a post and he was not certain what would be done there. Mr. Williams stated the floor plans would be corrected to eliminate the extra posts in the house as the corner of the house carried the load of the beam. Committee Member Imboden stated there were a lot of changes being proposed to the structure that were in some cases based on evidence and on others they were somewhat conjectural. He wanted to know exactly what was being proposed and what the DRC would be approving. The railing on the existing elevation appeared different than what was being proposed. It looked very narrow and the proposed looked like slats. He was speaking to the railing on the lower porch deck. There was an existing column that continued up with the rail ending at the column on both ends; but he could not discern from the new elevations if the post would remain below the top l rail with the addition of a new rail that continued across? Mr. Williams stated it would be one continuous top rail. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for April 3, 2013 Page 7 of 26 0 Committee Member Imboden stated he thought the rail had been cut through in order to add the post. Mr. Williams stated he saw the hatching problem Committee Member Imboden had spoken about regarding the front porch pickets. He believed it was a hatch error from the computer program that placed a square hatch there. The actual proposed was what was on the drawings. Committee Member Imboden stated he would appreciate having the plans note what was being done. Chair Fox stated the plans had noted existing 1" x 4" for the baluster. Committee Member Imboden stated it appeared that the lower sill of the window that had been enclosed on the front porch, it seemed to be in line with the bottom of the other windows. The elevations had the window in a much lower place. Chair Fox stated the plans noted "restore existing window and door." Committee Member Woollett stated that could be done in a motion. Chair Fox stated that could be done with a condition. Committee Member Imboden stated he felt to that point he had dealt with the Staff Report issues. On the walk -out deck and rail there had been quite a lot of discussion about the size, both in depth and width. The Staff Report indicated it had been pulled back from the edge, but the drawings appeared to have it flush with the front and the sides. Mr. Williams stated he had thought they were speaking to the edge of the roof line; originally it had been to the roof line and it had been pulled back 12" from the roof line. Committee Member Imboden asked if the drawings showed what the applicant wished to propose? Mr. Williams stated yes. Committee Member Imboden stated he had some concerns as a new element was being added to the front facade of a Nationally Registered property; he would prefer to see that element reduced. His discussion during the last review was to have the deck centered on the door and he thought it was being pulled back further. It was a very predominant feature on the front of the home and there had not been any indication that it had existed on the home, historically. Mr. Williams stated Committee Member Imboden had not had any evidence that it had not existed. Committee Member Imboden stated it had not worked that way. The Standards were quite clear about adding conjectural features or creating a false historic appearance; he was not opposed to the element being added if it was kept as a secondary scale. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for April 3, 2013 Page 8 of 26 0 Ms. Santana stated there were photos in the library that showed the home with a rail. Committee Member Imboden stated that was a tiny little 8" rail that ran along the perimeter; it was not a balcony edge. Chair Fox stated they needed to go back as their suggestion had been to center it around the door, and what Mr. Ryan had noted in the Staff Report. The rail was not centered; the rail would surround the entire porch area and she could understand that approach. Committee Member Wheeler stated there was the argument that if there had been a rail installed on the home the situation proposed would have been a logical placement, especially lined up with the base instead of set back, which would have created a structural issue. Committee Member Imboden stated he would tend to agree, however, the very comment that was being made had gone to a false sense of history. There was nothing that showed the element had been there and to him it was being proposed as a very predominant element on the front of the house. If it was on the back of the house he would feel different about it, but he would not be able to support that part of the project. Chair Fox asked Committee Member Imboden if he would support the project if the rail was centered on the door and pulled back further and had not lined up with the porch? p Committee Member Imboden stated the front elevation was the most important elevation and he had less concern with alignment to the corner column, but it certainly needed to be pulled in from the front considerably. Committee Member Wheeler stated there was so much asymmetry there already, that centering it on the door had not made much sense. Mr. Williams stated his position on the banister was that it was appropriate to what the Secretary of the Interior's Standards indicated. Having the railing centered on the door would be more of an eyesore instead of blending, and blending was what he was required to do. Committee Member Imboden stated the Standards had not mentioned anything about looking funny. He thought there was plenty of opportunity to install a rail that was complimentary to the existing design of the home and complied with the Standards. Mr. Williams stated they could both agree on both of their positions. Chair Fox stated that on the front she felt the proportion of the railing was nice, with having a little parapet. She would want to see a cap on the parapet before the post was added, instead of a more abrupt modern detail. Committee Member Imboden asked how was the face of that to be finished, because the drawings had not shown that detail? Mr. Williams stated Committee Member Wheeler had recommended that it be a solid board and not be any type of horizontal lap siding. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for April 3, 2013 Page 9 of 26 Committee Member Imboden stated when they had previously spoken about an eyebrow roof, typically it was just a very shallow horizontal piece, but what was presented was a gable. Mr. Ryan stated a true eyebrow. Committee Member Imboden stated it was pushed up so high and the existing roof came down to the roof bracket. He asked if there was any thought in using a flat shed? Mr. Ryan stated they spoke about it and Mr. Williams felt it reflected what had been requested at the previous meeting by the DRC. Mr. Williams stated in reviewing the minutes from the previous meeting the DRC had requested to have an eyebrow dormer. To provide strength, there needed to be a bracket the size to carry the load of hinge of the eyebrow and be above the window sill. The way to do that was to put posts to the ground. Committee Member Wheeler suggested just having a little shed roof supported by brackets. Chair Fox stated she had thought the shed might go all the way over the porch windows as well and there was a little bit of wall space between the windows that could hold a bracket for a little shed. Mr. Williams stated he had not heard that during the previous discussion and he reflected on the minutes from the previous meeting. When he read eyebrow dormer he thought eyebrow and not shed. He was only complying with what had been requested. Committee Member McCormack asked if there were four openings cut into the little board on the front deck? Mr. Williams stated yes, scuppers. Committee Member McCormack asked if that would drain on the wood siding? Chair Fox stated it would drain onto the little roof. The Committee Members reviewed the drawings. Committee Member McCormack asked if the deck was waterproof on top? Mr. Williams stated yes, it sloped from the door forward. Committee Member McCormack discussed the drainage situation with the applicant. Mr. Williams explained how the water would be transferred off of the deck; anything that was placed on the deck would need to slope outward. Committee Member McCormack asked if a slot along the whole deck would be a better solution? City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for April 3, 2013 Page 10 of 26 Chair Fox stated the deck P osts would get water penetration and the water would collect. P g Committee Member McCormack asked what material the scupper would be? Mr. Williams stated he believed they came in galvanized or copper. They would probably use copper with some Dex -O -Tex used over the top for waterproofing. Chair Fox asked if the dormer on the back bathroom was okay with everyone? All Committee Members agreed it was fine. Committee Member Imboden stated he understood a new foundation was going under the side room and the plans noted just foundation, but had not noted a finish. The rest of the home had stucco finish; he asked what the material finish would be? Mr. Williams stated it was likely the original foundation had not had a stucco finish. He proposed a concrete smooth foundation, smoothed with a trowel with the forms off without stucco and it would match existing. There was no evidence of any block detail or anything, it was just flat. He would note foundation upgrade to match the existing situation at the site. Committee Member Imboden stated he assumed it was just a drafting error, but in looking at the f side elevation the roof was up on top of the other roof. There was a gable that was formed and it had not existed that way in the field; he wanted clarification on that detail. Mr. Williams stated the elevation needed to reflect the actual situation and he would make adjustments to the plans; there was no proposal to change the roof. Committee Member Woollett stated the way that the front elevation was proposed was fine. They had discussed the situation at length at the previous meeting and what he was reviewing before him was what he thought had been suggested. In conclusion, he thought it appeared fine. He agreed that the covering over the rear door should be a shed roof. He was fine with it. Committee Member Wheeler stated the railing on the second floor worked fine and it was the logical position for it. If there had been a railing it was logically the way it would have been originally built. He agreed with the shed roof. He was reluctantly in agreement in closing off the center window of the old service porch instead of installing new windows. The columniation of the front porch, as shown on the elevation and not the floor plan, would be the preferred treatment with just a trim board against the north side of the reading room and to not try to wrap the siding around the corner. Committee Member Woollett stated there was no such a thing as Dex -O -Tex or things that were currently used on decks when the home had been built; and it was likely when the home was built there was no such product applied. There was more than likely a shed roof over the porch with shingles on it that had been removed and it had not mattered, what was proposed was fine. There would not have been a way to waterproof the deck back when the home was built. He would not deny the deck. Committee Member McCormack stated he really liked the deck and thought it was cool. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for April 3, 2013 Page 11 of 26 Chair Fox stated she felt the way the DRC was headed was that there were pretty strong consensus on all issues except for the deck. She wanted to come to some agreement and possibly go through each situation in order to come to a consensus on those items. Mr. Ryan stated there were still issues regarding closing the center window, and the length of the railing and its position. On those two things there might not be agreement. Chair Fox asked if they should put everything together and see where they fell on the issues? Mr. Ryan stated they could make a motion and see what the outcome was. Committee Member Wheeler stated no partial motion was needed; just a motion and they could then discuss and revise if needed. Chair Fox made a motion to approve DRC No. 4663 -12, Santana Residence, subject to the findings and conditions contained in the Staff Report and with the following additional conditions: • Reading room to the south to remain as existing at the roof line, with no higher pitch to be introduced. • On the rear porch windows, the two side windows to remain and the center window removed and in- filled with vertical boards. • At the front elevation, at the right of the porch, only a vertical board on the north face of the corner would be introduced and no 1" x 8" wrap to the west face, facing the street. • The applicant to show the existing posts to be removed on the front porch. • On the west elevation, that the top rail of the railing system be noted as new 2'x 8' flat. • The north facing window at the porch corner to be restored and adjusted on the exterior elevations to reflect existing size, which had a higher sill. • To be noted on the elevations that a cap rail will be added to the top of the parapet of the upper deck rail that will stick out approximately 1" with a flat 1x board, painted, to be applied to the face of the parapet below the railing. • The eyebrow over the back porch to be a flat shed style with brackets to the right of the door and left of the porch windows. • The new foundation under the reading room to match existing foundation finish. And with the following recommendation: • The deck scupper to be wider. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Carol Fox, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: Robert Imboden ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Mr. Ryan asked on the shed roof of the rear porch, how far would that need to go over? 1 City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for April 3, 2013 Page 12 of 26 ® Chair Fox stated to extend to the right of the door and left of the windows. MOTION CARRIED. 0 0 City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for April 3, 2013 Page 13 of 26 New Agenda Items: (2) DRC No. 4660 -12 — MCDONALD'S REBUILD • A proposal to demolish the existing 3,665 sq. ft. McDonald's restaurant in order to construct a new 3,796 sq. ft. McDonald's restaurant. • 606 N. Tustin Street • Staff Contact: Doris Nguyen, 714 - 744 -7223, dnguyen @cityoforange.org • DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission Associate Planner, Doris Nguyen, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Ms. Nguyen also pointed out a correction that the applicant wanted to make regarding the freestanding monument dimensions. Applicants, Kate Curtin, Jim Bickel, and Kori Seki, addresses on file, were present for questions. Public Comment None. Chair Fox opened the item to the Committee for discussion. Committee Member Wheeler stated he had a question on page 3 of the Staff Report where it showed that the parking space count and drive aisle widths were the purview of the DRC. He asked if that should read "were not the purview of the DRC ?" Ms. Nguyen stated yes, he was correct, that was an item for the Planning Commission to discuss. Committee Member Wheeler stated on page 4 of the architectural drawings, he was surprised by the lack of information on the drawings. On the lower right -hand corner there was an entry door with a window next to it and on sheet 7 the window appeared much bigger than it had on page 4. He asked which was correct? Ms. Curtin stated the floor plan was correct and the elevation would be adjusted. Chair Fox asked if the white material would wrap back to the new window location? Ms. Curtin stated it would be the base stucco color, the darker color. The white was only for the arcade area or pop outs. Committee Member Imboden stated the white and colored areas were in the same plane. Committee Member Wheeler stated the white popped out. Committee Member Imboden stated it had not appeared that way on the plans. In looking at drawing 4, it appeared that the corner was flush. 4 - City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for April 3, 2013 Page 14 of 26 Committee Member Woollett stated on the front elevation the white was set back. The Committee Members reviewed the drawings. Committee Member Imboden stated for clarification, the white portion of the corner with the horizontal reveals would not protrude past the south wall that it was flush with it. Ms. Curtin stated correct, not on the south elevation only when turning to the west elevation. Committee Member Wheeler stated on the north elevation there was an enclosure around the electrical /fire room and on page 7 there was a horizontal trim that ran across that space, but it had not returned on the north or south elevations. Ms. Curtin stated he was correct, that should return. Committee Member Woollett stated on the southeast elevation the brown was being brought around the corner where the window would not be, and above that there was a white trim piece that ran horizontal; and in looking at the west side of the door the drawings showed the trim piece had some depth, it would stick out 3" to 4" from the wall, presumably it would do that over the door and window. When it arrived at the east elevation it must also stick out there and turn the corner and run north, that was shown on the front elevation. The applicants discussed the situation with Committee Member Woollett and reviewed the drawings. Committee Member Wheeler stated on detail No. 5, there was a call out for corrugated metal and he asked if there were any samples or more information about that? Ms. Nguyen stated the only samples that were submitted were the color boards. Mr. Bickel stated it would be corrugated metal in silver; it would be anodized. The fascia would be in the corrugated metal. Committee Member Imboden asked if a materials board would be something that would be made available to the DRC? Ms. Nguyen stated the applicant chose to submit a color board. Committee Member Imboden stated it was a requirement, but it had not been submitted. Committee Member Wheeler stated on page 8 he was pleased to have the notation for the trash enclosure to be plaster to match, and to have that detail noted again so it would not be missed for the trash enclosure to be coated and painted to match the building. Chair Fox asked if there were any further questions on the building plans? City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for April 3, 2013 Page 15 of 26 Committee Member McCormack commented that the architecture was beautiful and what the applicant was doing was great. He liked the idea of the two -lane order board area. He drove by that location all the time and there was always a stacking of cars waiting in line. He had a few issues with the proposed site plan. He wondered why the return driveway parallels Tustin St. It appeared that there would not be entry on the southern curb cut, where as there were two arrows on the northern end for entry. It seemed that the same condition should be on the other side as well. Ms. Nguyen stated because of the stacking, people would circulate through the property then drive the wrong way on southbound Tustin to head back to the driveway entrance on the northern side of the property. They would drive on the wrong side of the street to get back to the north driveway, which is a one -way entrance. Committee Member McCormack stated he had not understood that. Committee Member Imboden stated he had a six year old, so he had frequented the restaurant, and he spent a lot of time in the left hand turn lane on Tustin Street watching cars turn left in front of him only to have someone back out of the first parking space, which he pointed to on the plans. As the line moved up a person would back out and they had already started their turn and that person would sit at the drive apron waiting for a person to pull away with coming traffic approaching. He was concerned that the situation would be made worse as the person pulling out would also need to watch for cars pulling in. A car pulling in, a car backing out, and a car coming from the left. He understood what the attempt was, but he felt the situation as presented, would set up an even worse scenario. Chair Fox stated except the parking space would be a loading zone. Ms. Nguyen stated it was motorcycle parking. The handicap space was previously there at the end, but the SRC asked that the handicap space be moved, for the very reason that Committee Member Imboden spoke to; however, there was still a motorcycle parking space there. Chair Fox stated the parking space was further up. Committee Member Imboden stated when the car backed out it would still present the same issue; that car could not get off the street. Mr. Bickel stated McDonald's had done studies across the nation, especially in Southern California on the one -way circulation pattern. Based on the percentage of drive -thru traffic that they realized over decades and the number of patrons that used the drive -thru vs. the dining room and trying to increase the flow successfully with a better experience with the customers; the one - way worked very well. But if someone turned in and missed getting into the drive -thru, then they were forced to make a left across a very busy street, which was the traffic hazard. McDonald's had realized this and they were trying very hard to eliminate that situation. There had been approximately 80 restaurants with the same by -pass that was being presented, and there Nor had been very positive results and much success with that. Committee Member Imboden stated in theory what Mr. Bickel stated made sense; however, when he visited that McDonald's he parked in the areas where there were open spaces and s w City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for April 3, 2013 Page 16 of 26 pointed those out on the plans, and he understood people made decisions when there was no place to park, but on that site it would not work and had not been his experience. Committee Member McCormack stated there was a waiting mitigation with the double order board, but site -wise it would not work and he understood what the applicant was proposing. It was odd to have another lane of traffic if you were entering left and there was a point that was more dangerous and there would be three hit points there. People coming out and making a left onto Tustin Street would be in a dangerous situation; he felt it was a terrible site design. Chair Fox commented about the real problem where people were driving the wrong way on Tustin Street. Ms. Nguyen stated patrons were driving north bound in the south bound lane. Chair Fox stated that was a real problem that the site plan was attempting to address. Committee Member Imboden stated he had never witnessed that scenario and he could only speak to the situation that he witnessed many, many times and he was going on that. Chair Fox stated it was not the position of the Design Review Committee to make traffic assumptions; if the people who were there stated it was a situation and a problem and she would not want to state her own personal experience on Tustin would override the traffic safety issues that had already been determined. Committee Member Imboden asked where were the statistics, how often had it occurred, and what were they basing it on? Was it only from what McDonald's was stating or from the Police Department? Mr. Seki stated if there were a car waiting to turn in and another car trying to make a second attempt to come around, and if that car was attempting to swing around, and had not paid attention to the car turning in, there was a possibility of a collision. On the proposed site plan, it was easier to see the car waiting to go back into the line and that alone alleviated the potential for a collision. Committee Member McCormack asked what alleviated that situation? If that person wanted to go in the drive -thru he would have to back up. Chair Fox stated it was safer then going the wrong way on Tustin. Committee Member Imboden stated he wanted to know where the information came from? Committee Member Woollett stated on the point of order it was not the DRC's issue. Committee Member McCormack stated it was a site issue. Chair Fox stated she agreed with Committee Member Woollett. As a Design Review Committee it was not in their purview to be making recommendations for things that dealt with traffic safety. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for April 3, 2013 Page 17 of 26 Committee Member Wheeler stated he agreed with Chair Fox. Committee Member McCormack stated he disagreed as he felt it was site design issues. Chair Fox stated if there were site design issues, they could bring those up and she truly believed that they were treading in the wrong waters when they wanted to override what measures were in place for traffic safety. Committee Member Woollett stated he agreed with Chair Fox. Committee Member McCormack stated it was a site issue and they were creating a circle around the restaurant look; and he had not agreed. He asked about the tree situation? Ms. Nguyen stated the site required 35 trees and 16 were proposed. The tree count was the issue. Committee Member McCormack stated he disagreed with the removal of the Pine trees in the corner and the transformer was not shown and he would not be supportive. Those trees were aesthetically shielding a big huge pole and wires. The other deal was that the streetscape on Tustin Street looked pretty cool; there were the two Palm trees that matched the streetscape with the sign in the middle. If those Pine trees needed to be removed from that space he suggested that they be re -used in some Palm fashion that had a relationship to the aesthetics on the street. The landscape design was very typical and there were small trees being proposed but they could use medium trees instead. He was okay with the Ficus tree being removed and he was okay with the shrubs; however, he was more concerned with the Pine trees. They could relocate the transformer and trash enclosure and keep the Pine trees. The filtration system could be moved up, that was doable. Mr. Seki stated the trash enclosure was located based on a more convenient location for the staff and with a large amount of trash it was the closest distance. Otherwise, to have to come all the way out to the back it would be quite a distance. Committee Member McCormack stated in weighing the trees, shade, and aesthetics vs. an employee walking 30 more steps, the trees were more important. Mr. Seki stated it was different if someone was walking for pleasure. With the further distance location of the trash enclosure, if someone got hurt it could become a worker's compensation situation. Committee Member McCormack stated he could not see losing three Pine trees to save 30 steps. Chair Fox asked if all three trees needed to remain to screen the situation in that corner? Committee Member McCormack stated no, not all three trees would need to remain. It was just difficult to get mature trees of that size. He reviewed the plans with the applicant. Mr. Seki stated it had not made sense to have the employees walk through two lanes of traffic to get to the trash enclosure. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for April 3, 2013 Page 18 of 26 Committee Member McCormack stated if the trash enclosure was moved they could use the handicap ramp to get to the other side and it would be safer. Ms. Nguyen stated they could look at that with the Water Quality Division. Committee Member McCormack stated he was in support of the architecture, and the landscaping was fine. He had not wanted to tell the landscape architect what type of trees to use, but he would want a bigger tree on the south and north property lines. A medium size tree could be used to provide some shade. Chair Fox asked if they could get more trees on the site or should they just be larger trees? The applicant was asking for a variance on the number of trees. Committee Member McCormack stated the trees needed to be bigger; they were in the middle of an asphalt parking lot and a larger tree was needed to get up and out of the way of trucks. Chair Fox stated in support of the variance for fewer trees, they could request larger trees. Committee Member McCormack stated the 15 gallon trees would be so small. He would support the variance if they were providing bigger trees. Ms. Nguyen stated the tree count was based on the sum of the length of the entire perimeter of the site, the length of the parking stalls, plus the lineal length of the building and then divide that by 36. The required number of parking spaces was 38 and proposed was 34. Committee Member Wheeler asked how many spaces the site currently had? Ms. Nguyen stated 43. Mr. Seki stated the reasoning for that would be with a second order point in the drive -thru that would provide for more cars in the drive -thru. Chair Fox stated she read that the dining area was being decreased. Mr. Seki stated what had been discovered was that at McDonald's restaurants that added a second order point, the drive -thru percentage increased and customers tended to use the drive - thru more. Committee Member McCormack stated the trees were 27' on center, which was okay for a medium size tree; the next spacing would be 18'. He had seen that done in Irvine, but he suggested the tree be a bit bigger. The proposed trees were more of a patio tree and he suggested a larger tree. He would leave it up to the landscape architect to choose a tree that would not cause root problems, and with a tree that would be of bigger stature and not to require the 35 trees. Ms. Nguyen stated it was not a box size issue but specie of tree issue. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for April 3, 2013 Page 19 of 26 Committee Member McCormack stated that was correct. If he was doing the design he would have the same size for the perimeter trees, and have a smaller box in the interior spaces. It was a tough site. Applicant, Charles Trowbridge, address on file, agreed that what Committee Member McCormack was stating had merit and they could find a larger tree. His only issue was the space that they were planting in. A medium tree could work, but they needed to be careful and they had not wanted to create a situation with roots, curbs, and such for the long term. In response to the comment of the King Palm trees, those could be relocated. They had not wanted to block the signs, but possibly they could be set behind the signs and there would be the instance of large trees. Committee Member McCormack stated he agreed that a manageable medium size tree with linear root barriers with deep watering would not cause root problems. He had used True Green Elm trees and those were 20% to 25% larger and they could be opened up to see through them but to still provide shade. To explore something with a bit more stature. Committee Member Imboden stated they had two landscape architects in the room and they could make a decision here and now. When the project goes to the Planning Commission there will not be a landscape architect on the Planning Commission; if there was a belief that there should be a change he suggested that they propose that change. Mr. Trowbridge stated he suggested a Lavender Trumpet tree; his experience with Elm trees was a maintenance issue because they grew so fast. If there was another tree that they wanted to suggest he was open to that. Committee Member McCormack stated he agreed with the Lavender Trumpet tree and to go with all of those and he had not had an issue with that tree. He suggested a smaller Magnolia tree and felt that would work and to use a bubbler dedicated to get the roots down and that would ensure the roots went down. Committee Member Wheeler suggested the use of the Golden Trumpet tree to go with the McDonald's colors. Mr. Trowbridge stated that was a thought, but it was considered still a small tree and he had wanted to consider the maintenance issues for the property owner. Committee Member McCormack stated the Lavender Trumpet and Magnolia trees would be good choices, coupled with a deep watering system and a linear root barrier would work. Chair Fox asked if they needed to come to a consensus on the Canary Island Pine trees? Committee Member McCormack stated he had not thought they were a Canary Island Pine tree. Chair Fox stated she was not concerned with the specie, but had anyone else agreed with the need to save those? City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for April 3, 2013 Page 20 of 26 Committee Member Imboden stated they were making a lot of compromises and to ask for the mature trees to remain was not a big concession. Mr. Bickel stated they had been working with Southern California Edison on the transformer and there were quite a few restrictions that they needed to adhere to for that agency and Edison dictated where the transformer needed to be. Chair Fox stated that was her question about the number of trees and they all seemed to be on the Edison easement. Committee Member McCormack stated the trees were in the corner and by moving the transformer just a few feet and the trash enclosure there and it would all work in that area. Committee Member Woollett stated in the southwest corner there was drainage there and he could identify with the issues with the power company; it seemed that if the owner wanted to remove a big tree it had not bothered him and he was certain that they would want to put in another bigger tree. He suspected that the larger issue was to solve the transformer location issue and he could see why they wanted the connection for the trash enclosure; they all wanted to hold onto the trees but there were other ways to solve the situation. They could add three new big trees. Ms. Curtin stated the site was currently draining to the southwest side and in moving the trash enclosure to the north side they wanted to avoid having drainage going through the trash enclosure area and needed to avoid any possible contamination off -site. That was another concern and another reason to have the trash enclosure at the proposed location. Mr. Bickel stated if they could reasonably keep the trees without the conflict of the trash and certainly not the transformer and if they could keep the trees they would. Chair Fox stated what if they proposed a condition to screen the unsightly pole elements at the northwest corner of the lot, and that could be done with the existing trees or new trees. Committee Member Imboden stated he felt they needed to be more specific. Committee Member McCormack stated he had been through that situation and he knew what would happen. Committee Member Imboden stated there was another way to solve it, but he felt that it should be stated how it should be solved. Committee Member Wheeler suggested that the landscape be bifurcated to come back to the DRC prior to issuance of a Building Permit. Committee Member McCormack stated the Pine trees were providing an appealing screen for the residents behind the restaurant and maybe bifurcating would be the solution. If the poles were not there he would not have an issue. • City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for April 3, 2013 Page 21 of 26 Chair Fox stated in looking at the architecture there were a few comments on the building and they needed to respond to the color. They were probably poised to approve the architecture with a few comments and the landscape could come back without holding up the approval process for the rest of the project. Mr. Seki stated he would want an approval on the landscape. Ms. Nguyen clarified what would occur. There would be a potential approval for the building; however, the landscaping would come back to the DRC with a final landscape plan prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. This way the project could move on to the Planning Commission. Mr. Seki stated he was fine with that. Committee Member Woollett stated Edison would need clearance to the transformer and they would need to study that situation carefully. Committee Member McCormack stated they could lose that one parking space and that would allow for access; there needed to be 8' clear to the transformer. Chair Fox stated they were already under parked. Committee Member Imboden asked without approving the landscape plan how would that affect the approval with the Planning Commission for the tree variance? Ms. Nguyen stated as long as they provided the same number of trees or greater, they would be within the variance. Committee Member McCormack stated the two corners needed to be restudied and they needed to ensure access to the transformer. Committee Member Woollett stated they may not be able to add landscape in that area for the transformer access; the applicant would need to look at that. It appeared that there had already been a lot of thought put into the site plan. Chair Fox asked if the applicant had enough information on the landscape direction? Mr. Bickel stated yes. Chair Fox stated they could move to discussion on the signage and she asked how the DRC felt about the building color scheme? Ms. Curtin provided the color palette to the Committee Members, there were additional schemes. Chair Fox stated she felt it was a fine choice of colors. Committee Member Wheeler stated it was a good choice. Committee Members Imboden and McCormack agreed. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for April 3, 2013 Page 22 of 26 c Chair Fox stated the project was a huge improvement and she lauded the applicants for their work. Committee Member Wheeler stated on sheet A -5 for signage, on the signage on the front Tustin side, there was a channel support and an exposed raceway. The DRC had not typically approved raceways, but in the situation as presented it would be an appropriate place for the exposed raceway. On page 6 there was also an exposed raceway and he would suggest removal of that raceway with the letters applied directly to the parapet. On the sign area of the existing freestanding monument on page 12, the sign was listed at 184 square feet and on page 9 the dimension was 8' x 23', and it worked out to 184 square feet. They were being told it was not correct. Ms. Bickel stated they had a revision. Applicant, Chris Jonochia, address on file, stated he had exact measurements of the monument sign. He had come up with 20' at the top with 17' below and those were revised measurements. Committee Member Wheeler stated in figuring the measurement they used the enclosed space under the City's sign ordinance. The 8' had not included the new sign at the bottom, scaled out it appeared tight. He asked if that fell into the 2 /3rds rule? Now Ms. Nguyen stated no. Mr. Jonochia stated it was the same sign that currently existed. Committee Member Wheeler stated they were asking for additional signage. There was a banner on the roof and there was window signage and they were pushing harder for more signage. Ms. Nguyen stated Staff asked for the additional signage to include the address on the monument sign; per the OMC requirements. Committee Member Imboden stated the architectural feature of the arches was not included in the sign area. Ms. Nguyen stated yes, that was correct. Committee Member McCormack stated it was reuse of existing signage. Chair Fox stated there was the monument sign and the City was asking for additional signage of the addition of an address. She was okay with that sign being reused and asked if there was a variance for more signage on the building? Ms. Nguyen stated they were only allowed to have one sign on each elevation and two were proposed for the east and the south elevations; the logo and text counted as two signs. The square footage was okay. 1 City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for April 3, 2013 Page 23 of 26 Chair Fox stated she was okay with the variances for the signage and it created architectural elements that broke up the large box of a building. Adding the address to an existing sign would make the situation safer. Committee Member Wheeler stated for the base of the monument sign he would recommend that it was painted to match the building color. Committee Member McCormack stated on the sign L1 it was a drive -thru sign on both signs and that sign appeared to be located correctly, but there was an L2 sign that had "do not enter" and "thank you" and the orientation of that sign needed to be changed. The Committee Members discussed the orientation of the signs with the applicants. Chair Fox stated Committee Member Imboden had asked if they were going to further discuss the additional drive lane? Committee Member Wheeler stated he personally felt it was not within the DRC's purview to discuss. Chair Fox stated she agreed. Committee Member Imboden asked where the information had come from, the problem with the circulation? Ms. Nguyen stated both from the applicant and anecdotally from SRC. During the SRC meeting, Staff, in particular Public Works, had also discussed that it was a problem. Chair Fox stated personally she felt it was not their purview to make changes to a traffic situation. Committee Member Imboden stated there had been other projects before the DRC that had been presented that the DRC members felt unsafe conditions were being proposed and Staff had told the DRC that it was within their purview to comment. He, at minimum, would at least strongly encourage that there be language to request the Planning Commission to review the situation and he had not agreed that it was not a DRC issue. There had not been evidence from Staff that there was a big issue that needed a resolution. From his own experience he felt the situation proposed presented other issues. Chair Fox stated it was documented in the Staff Report that there were people driving the wrong way onto Tustin. Committee Member Imboden stated the Staff Report stated that the situation would alleviate cars from driving north on a south bound lane of Tustin, but the situation had not spoke to any Police Department concerns, or if there had been a certain number of accidents or was there any tangible information. What he was hearing from the applicant was the drive -thru and circulation situation was a new design that was being implemented in all of their new restaurant designs and he was not truly convinced that the situation presented was actually occurring. From his perspective, he had no Police Department evidence, there was not an SRC report, and from his -r' City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for April 3, 2013 Page 24 of 26 1 own perspective he wanted the Planning Commission to take a second look at it and to understand that all members of the DRC were not okay with it. The DRC had reviewed non - aesthetic issues all the time. Chair Fox stated it could be added as a recommendation. Committee Member Imboden asked if the other Members were okay with that? Chair Fox stated she was okay with noting that there could be another potential traffic situation at the location. Committee Member McCormack stated he was not certain what the studies showed, but maybe there needed to be some additional traffic studies. Site design -wise, he felt it broke up the whole street presence of McDonalds. Others might have different opinions and he would want to understand that the new site design would eliminate the situation that had been presented with people driving the wrong way on Tustin. Chair Fox stated from an aesthetic standpoint she was pleased with the proposal as it was aesthetically pleasing and would function better. Committee Member McCormack stated it added another lane, headlights, and cars going other ways. Chair Fox stated it was only 10', another parking space, and probably would not be filled with cars all of the time. Committee Member Imboden asked then why propose it? Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to recommend approval to the Planning Commission, DRC No. 4660 -12, McDonald's Rebuild, subject to the findings and conditions contained in the Staff report and with the additional conditions: • Correct the size of the window and door on the south elevation. They should match the floor plan on the SE corner of the building. • The horizontal trim band that extends across the west face of the electrical and fire enclosure to also wrap around to the re- entrant corners on either side. • The trash enclosure finish shall match the finish of the building. • The channel letters of the new signage on the south side building signage shall be mounted directly to the corrugated metal of the building without the use of a raceway. • The base of the monument sign shall be painted the same color as one of the building colors. • Both sides of the directional signage on the SE corner shall state "do not enter" or the sign should be rotated then read "do not enter" on one side and "thank you" on the other. • The Landscape plan and Site plan to be bifurcated to return to the DRC prior to issuance of Building Permit. y { City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for April 3, 2013 Page 25 of 26 And with an additional note for the Planning Commission: That there were a couple of Committee Members that had concerns with the added traffic lane at the front of the building and that it may add additional traffic problems that should be considered. SECOND: Joe Woollett AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for April 3, 2013 Page 26 of 26 ADJOURNMENT: Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to adjourn to the next regular scheduled Design Review Committee meeting on April 17, 2013. SECOND: Robert Imboden AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. Meeting adjourned at 7:42 p.m.