Loading...
12-03-2008 DRC MinutesCITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES -FINAL 3 December 2008 Committee Members Present: Bill Cathcart Adrienne Gladson Tim McCormack Craig Wheeler Joe Woollett Committee Members Absent: None Staff in Attendance: Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager Ed Knight, Assistant Planning Director Anna Pehoushek, Principal Planner Dan Ryan, Senior Planner, Historic Preservation Robert Garcia, Associate Planner Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner Howard Morris, Senior Landscape Coordinator Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary Administrative Session - 4:30 P.M. The Committee met for an Administrative Session beginning at 4:35 p.m. Chair Wheeler opened the discussion with a review of the Agenda. No changes were noted. Planning Manager, Leslie Aranda Roseberry, stated regarding Policy and Procedural information everyone was meeting with Alice Angus individually and one of the items that was addressed was the budget and one thing that would be cut out would be the snacks at the Design Review Committee Meetings, with the thinking that all small cuts would add up to something larger. The Committee reviewed the minutes from the November 19, 2008 meeting. Changes/corrections were noted. Chair Wheeler recused himself from the remainder of the Administrative portion of the meeting as his business was located in Old Towne. Ms. Aranda Roseberry introduced Staff members, Principal Planner, Anna Pehoushek and, Senior Planner Historic Preservation, Dan Ryan, who would be providing a presentation and soliciting feedback on updating the Old Towne Design Standards. Ms. Pehoushek would be reviewing items #1 and #2 on their Agenda, which would cover how and why the process was started and how it fit into the process. Mr. Ryan would cover item #2b The Issues. Ms. Pehoushek would wrap up the meeting with Item #3. If the Committee Members had questions along the way they were encouraged to ask them and they would appreciate all their input when Mr. Ryan covered his portion. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 3, 2008 Page 2 of 28 Ms. Pehoushek stated she and Mr. Ryan were working collaboratively on the project and the motivation behind updating the Standards was due to the various issues involved with Planning Staff trying to administer the standards and there were areas that were not as clear as they could be and further guidance was needed. There had also been an evolution in Old Towne as it had become more sophisticated. The practice of reviewing projects had evolved to a point where there were some aspects of that process that were in direct conflict with the Standards. For example there was language which talked about things that could not been seen from the street were not presented to the DRC, and that was not always the case. Other things that they were looking to address, which was covered in Mr. Ryan's Grand Street Study, were the bulk and mass issue. The Grand Street Study involved a controversial second unit project that generated a lot of community debate which Mr. Ryan had studied in detail. The FAR, bulk and mass which produced recommendations from that study were not integrated into the Old Towne Standards. The Community was waiting for an update of the Standards. Other issues were the confusion over time between the Old Towne Standards and the Secretary of Interior Standards and CEQA, which would be reviewed to allow easier use and a more simple way for the public to understand. Ms. Pehoushek stated in general the intent was to make the document more user friendly with more graphics that would assist in the Standards and lift some of the mystery and apprehension that went along with Old Towne projects. Ms. Pehoushek stated the update project had begun approximately a year ago and they had solicited general feedback from the DRC, Planning Commission and OTPA which happened from November through the early part of 2008. While that process was taking place they had conducted their own internal inventory of items and problems they wanted to address. There was a handout that reflected what they had put together internally and had received from OTPA. They had not received a lot of feedback from the various City bodies and in May of 2008 Mr. Ryan held a workshop which gave an overview of the evolution of the Old Towne Standards. In attendance at that meeting were former DRC Members and they provided input on their experiences. Following that workshop there were various stakeholder meetings held with OTPA, architects, former DRC Members, merchants and property owners and contractors active in Old Towne. That process occurred through the month of October. Briefings were also held with the Planning Commission which gave them the opportunity for direct input and there had been a lot of feedback from them and through the stakeholder meetings. The DRC was the final input body and they wanted to obtain input on their experiences in working with the Standards and the process of reviewing projects and conveying proper City objectives through that process. She turned the meeting over to Mr. Ryan. Mr. Ryan stated one of the most important aspects of the Standards update was to walk away with a document that was workable, successful and loaded the information to the applicant as soon as possible based on their specific project and would allow them to go through the process quickly. In order to get to that point they had to begin with a clean slate. The current document worked, however, it needed a lot more effort when working with applicants to explain and clarify the Standards. The more information that could be included in the document in the way of graphics, pictures and processes or in some cases areas that could be emphasized to give the projects direction in the quality that would be involved. The benefit of the DRC Members input was their experience in using the document and application of it on projects, it put them on the front lines and their input was very important. As the new document would be put together it was important to gather information from those that used it and to have a document that worked for them. Mr. Ryan stated one of the nicer things in speaking with a panel of former DRC City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 3, 2008 Page 3 of 28 Members was being able to find out what their concerns were; they wanted to see clarity, continuity and consistency and for Staff to be able to approve the process as early as possible. There were issues in specific cases that had come to mind and as guidelines changed and became Standards there was a difference in how the earlier DRC Members had applied the Standards based on their own reasoning. The goal was to have user friendly guidelines and to streamline some of the components, such as on a small addition to a building that was under 120 square feet or if someone wanted to change doors and windows. If they were to go about those improvements in the wrong manner without consultation or a guideline it could lead them back to the DRC. The idea was to tighten up some things and let people know what was required. Mr. Ryan stated the Design Standards of southwest project areas that resulted in 1980 had some great ideas and a section on Historic Buildings that included evolution, use of original materials, limiting disruption of additions and understanding significance. There was some good stuff out there that was applied to commercial buildings or to those structures that happened to be zoned commercial. There was good stuff out there that could be used. It would be beneficial to have the Secretary of Interior Standards and the Old Towne Standards on the same page to be able to see when they applied and what was important. When there was a Mills Contract they generally focused more on the Secretary of Interior Standards. He did not want to repeat all the things. There were issues such as vinyl fencing and plastic signs, and one of the items that came up with consistency was having a certificate of appropriateness. For example there had been a case before the DRC where a vinyl fence had been used, and in that specific case the reasons for the justification of that use had been presented. In looking at projects in the Historic District it would be important to review the project for its appropriateness, however, if that was not the case the Standards would not want to be watered down. It would be a matter of consistency. Mr. Ryan stated demolition by neglect was another issue that came up and they would want clear guidelines for that and there was a lot of stuff out there that would be very applicable. Over the last year he had looked at Design Guidelines from across the U.S. to get an idea of what worked or did not work and to get a flavor of other things. It was important if an applicant came in and just wanted to replace windows, that there would be a handout available to the applicant. There could be repair/replacement conditions that could be a part of the guidelines and used as a separate handout. The handouts could be used for issues that frequently came up. It would be important in informing and educating the public. Outgoing workshops would also be held to continue to work with Staff and educate the public at large. The first series of workshops would be the History of Old Towne and then one on rehabilitation building, and those would be coming up in the future. Hopefully as the process came together Staff could put together an outline to flush out the issues and find direction and have an opportunity to revisit the Standards with various stakeholder groups to ensure they were going in the right direction. In the end the intent was to gather input from various groups who would actually be using the document. It was very important as the DRC met every two weeks or so and they should have a document that worked for them. Committee Member Cathcart stated Mr. Ryan and Ms. Pehoushek might not want to listen to him, as he was jaded. He had done the original Emerald Necklace Report back in 1973, 1975 through the City and he had written landscape guidelines in the early `80's and he had always stressed how there could be exceptions and he liked the idea of having a certificate of appropriateness. At one point in time when OTPA was starting out he had gotten the impression that they wanted to turn Orange into a museum. He wanted the City to stay alive and he was one City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 3, 2008 Page 4 of 28 of those people who had not wanted the City to be all the same little boxes, he wanted to see exceptions and as long as there was an avenue for that, having guidelines -which at one point the Mayor, Don Smith, had gotten into it asking what the difference was between Guidelines and Standards and Ordinances stating what was the difference as all he wanted was a guideline. They were suggestions that were over time tightened down and he would not want them tightened down so much that it was Gestapo village. He liked the idea of having the materials being integral, but some of the things were a bit arcane. He wondered how they proposed to dovetail the Standards with the rest of the guidelines outside of the district when someone had a 100 year old home that was not in Old Towne and they wanted to do something different. The in-fill guidelines would be followed and there were some interesting dilemmas in dovetailing those Standards to the rest of the community. Committee Member Gladson stated she was the newbie that was just getting to learn and work with the Standards. She made a distinction that when there were Standards they had more teeth than guidelines and maybe that was some of the things that could be helpful in terms of nomenclature for the document and what it exactly did. She was a bit tougher than her colleague and more rigid and not wanting to have as much flexibility when dealing with historic buildings. On in-fill in Old Towne she had a different twist on that, she was concerned when there was a project that could cause potential harm or end up hurting the building. She relied on the Standards. Committee Member Cathcart stated he appreciated Committee Member Gladson's comments, but somewhere along the line there would be a standard or guideline that butted up against property rights, and he lived on that line. Committee Member Gladson stated all of them did and it was important to find a middle ground. For the number of months she had been on the board, and it was wonderful, she was surprised how many applicants viewed the process as a game of bureaucracy which they could overcome. It was not beneficial for them. It was necessary to have a tool that would be viewed as something to make their project better. Committee Member Cathcart stated he sat on the Planning Commission for 5 years in the early 90's and he had been battling that the whole time. It was reasonable, whether they were standards or suggestions or guidelines, and he understood the comment of standards having more teeth, they needed to be careful not to go so far that property rights were negated and they had no right to overcome some of the appropriateness of materials that were not exactly historical. Mr. Ryan stated he brought up a very good point. One of the things in looking at the Staff Report and that came up were what were the defining characteristics of the home. One of the recommendations would be to list those things in order of priority. From top to bottom there would be a list with the most important attributes of the project. At that point the Old Towne Design Standards and the Secretary of Interior's Standards could be looked at for the recommendations from those documents. Was it a minor feature which they would not want to have a 4 hour discussion about and was the overall character of the building being maintained or impacted? Committee Member Woollett asked if that was currently being done? City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 3, 2008 Page 5 of 28 Mr. Ryan stated it was not done to the level where it jumped off the page. For example, here were the defining features, the top five, and was there an impact to the defining features, and if there was what was it? And why it would be recommended as meeting the Design Standards and how had it met the Secretary of Interior's Standards. There had been an application where a vinyl fence was set back on the property and the applicant had asked all the right questions, however, was never told they could not use vinyl. The fence was installed with DRC approval. In a case where a person was making the appropriate changes a certificate of appropriateness could be issued as verifying the project met the conditions and was appropriate. In cases where a different decision or finding was made there would be special circumstances that they could delineate, therefore, they would have the consistency. Committee Member Woollett asked if Mr. Ryan was stating that if the guidelines provided for that in a better manner, that the information could be pointed out to the applicant early on in their project? Mr. Ryan stated yes, the process would be that the DRC could make other determinations and findings, but it would not water down the standards and there would be reasons for that decision. It was frustrating to deal with those issues now and it would be a good tool for that. It would require that the findings be spelled out and made clearer. Looking at providing information more clearly to decision makers about what was important and what parts would be affected would make it much easier to make the findings. Committee Member Cathcart asked if they could use the similar decision that was used in Planning Commission about variances that a precedent was not being set, what was being done was looking at a unique situation? Mr. Ryan stated when looking at a certificate of appropriateness it would be spelled out very clearly in regard to the findings and would be a good tool for that. Committee Member Woollett asked Mr. Ryan if he had spoken about in-fill? He felt the most difficult issue they dealt with, from his standpoint, was when there was a building in the historic district that was being constructed on a blank piece of property and that was the key issue. It put him in an extremely awkward position. Should they try and recreate or force the applicant to recreate a false sense of history by saying the Old Towne Guidelines would need to be followed although there was nothing there. There was the legendary project, which he had not been involved in, on Glassell the medical building, where a historic building was created on a site where there was not a historic building before and he had huge conflicts with that. On the one hand a lot of people, including some elected officials, seemed to have the attitude that Old Towne meant something that looked old and there was another group that wanted to preserve the history of Old Towne and were dedicated to that. When phony buildings were created to look like they would fit, an egregious error was being made. They were mitigating against the thing that was trying to be preserved. To him that was the central conflict in the documents. Committee Member McCormack agreed with Committee Member Woollett. He stated creating something bold was something hard to do and picking a style whether it be classic, and a good example was to look at any college campus. On the east coast such as Princeton and to look at how the campus had evolved into an architectural style that fit. A good architect could pull that City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 3, 2008 Page 6 of 28 off. An architect could come up with amid-century style building that was appropriate for the area. Committee Member Woollett stated it would be stating "I am not an old building, I am a new building and I respect the style." It could become an area with an eclectic building, even a mixture of styles with respect to the old, although it was clearly not an old building. To deal with this head on would be very difficult; it was an issue that was not very well understood. Committee Member McCormack agreed with Committee Member Woollett and stated when he had sat on the board previously and they had looked at the B.I.T. building at Chapman University and the law school which came in at the same time. In looking at the B.I. T. it had not had anything that referred back to the fabric of Old Towne and the law school had made a gesture that was a little more appropriate. The B.I. T. building had fit in with a college campus. Most of the buildings on Chapman had appropriate designs and fit with Old Towne. Mr. Ryan stated he had made notes regarding a false sense of history and those designs that were new, but were recognized and fit. When looking at the Grand Street matrix, they looked at building envelopes, cornice lines and the features that fit. There was the analogy that in driving by you would not notice, until the building was looked at more closely, and until you studied the building you would not know that it was a newer building. They wanted something that fit in that was not a visual distraction and was complimentary. Having a fine line in understanding context helped to get them there rather than focusing on an architectural style. The focus should be on the context for in-fill, to look at matching cornices and features such as roof style. One of the things that was looked at in the Grand Street Study was getting the features close enough to the context of the block. The rest was bread and butter. Ms. Pehoushek stated they found that the community was asking for re-creation of new buildings to look old, they had not wanted it to look like Disneyland and there was not anything in the current Standards that helped them in that regard. Her background on the subject and her exposure to it was don't build something new to look old, build something new that would respond to the old building patterns, however, was clearly a new building. She had not seen Staff advocating re-creation of a false sense of history. Committee Member McCormack stated that she mentioned Disneyland and he had experience with that. As many times as he had been there and had studied it there was a re-creation of thematic design and it always came back to materials which were the most important things. There was concrete that was made to look like wood and various materials used to make it look old which made it appear fake. The key was the fact that local realtors, or the real estate community needed to realize there were factors in the City of Orange that required adherence. He questioned people who came into Old Towne that wanted to tear down structures which was counter productive. It was like using a "poison chart", a chart that had needs, must haves, would like, and things that could be done without. It would help for people to see a poison chart, for a person to want to take out wood windows and install aluminum windows and that would be the biggest poison pill they could take. Those were simple things, an applicant could look at the information and know he could get sick with one choice but not die with another. That would be where the priority would be and it would allow property rights and flexibility. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 3, 2008 Page 7 of 28 Mr. Ryan stated one of the objectives would be to provide information about the defining features of a historic building or the most important elements from the top down and how those features might possibly be affected. To provide information with the Design Standards and the Secretary of Interior Standards and in getting further down a list which features would be least important and to have the major portions of the building or defining features listed. Committee Member Woollett stated many times the defining features were very subtle details such as a trim around a window. Mr. Ryan stated certain defining features could be listed and to have a way to know immediately if those features would be impacted. Committee Member Gladson stated she was in favor of streamlining the process and allowing Staff to issue permits or certificates of appropriateness if there was no discretion and it had benefits for the community at large particularly in the residential area. She wanted the process to not be so onerous for people, recognizing it could get complicated. She was not struggling with in-fill projects and she looked at those as a clean slate. If a complimentary project was made she could measure that from a good design. She struggled more with changing a structure that dated a hundred years old and making changes that could mess it up and a priority list would be very helpful to her. She wanted to have a good sense where the design could go without causing harm. In reviewing CEQA, she understood that they could not make a decision on anything that required a CEQA review and she wanted to be confident in those projects coming to the DRC for final determination. That was her concern; frankly she would rely on Staff and make sure it was clear in the CEQA things they had to do. Committee Member Woollett asked how much discretion would they have? Committee Member Gladson stated she had not wanted them to have any. On certificates of appropriateness she wanted to know how that would work? Mr. Ryan stated one of the issues when looking at the Grand Street Study was the impact on CEQA, and some of those issues were: impacts on the neighbors, bulk and mass issues, and establishing thresholds for each block. Part of that was if it fell under the thresholds it had no impact. If the project exceeded it was clear that it had an impact on CEQA. If was important to come up with a matrix to allow an applicant, for example, if someone wanted to build a second floor area with 75% of the first floor area they wanted it to be clear that they could see they were up against the environmental issues. Ms. Pehoushek stated the Staff used the local CEQA guidelines to tie CEQA and the process to determine whether a project complied with the Old Towne Standards and with the Secretary of Interior's Standards. When they reached that conclusion it constituted a determination that there was not a significant impact to the resource and when Staff was comfortable in recommending a project for approval. They tried to button up the CEQA process. Committee Member Gladson asked when a project came to the DRC which required Planning Commission approval and had a CEQA document, the DRC became the body that looked at the aesthetics of the project as they became the mitigating entity that checked it out for bad stuff on the visual side. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 3, 2008 Page 8 of 28 Ms. Pehoushek stated it was a two step process, Staff would have reviewed the project and the DRC action was to verify it met Standards. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated when an environmental document was presented, whether it was a Mitigated Negative Declaration or an EIR, they were asking the DRC to focus on aesthetics and the cultural resources. In reviewing those documents they were asked to look at them with an eye that the document had identified any and all impacts under that category and if there were impacts how they had been mitigated. Committee Member McCormack asked for clarification on cultural resources and how would that be explained to an applicant? Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated cultural resource was referring to the district. Ms. Pehoushek stated it was historic preservation, archeology, paleontology that all fell under the umbrella of cultural resources and then CEQA defined a historic resource as something that was listed or had potential for listing on a local historic register, state or national register. CEQA was generally specific on what defined a historic resource; however, there was a lot of gray area that went with that as well. Committee Member Woollett stated in Old Towne there were individual historic structures. One of the criteria that he saw clearly was the need to preserve historic buildings. One of the ways to preserve the Old Towne area as a historic resource was not to confuse what was historic with what was not historic. There could be a very strong argument made that new structures should not be historic at all because if they look historic it gave people the impression that it was part of what made Old Towne historic. The contrast between historic buildings and new construction should be far greater. Many months ago there was a bank that had come in with a design that tried to make the bank look old and the DRC had shot it down and asked that the bank design be made completely contemporary. He wondered with all the struggle they had with the St. Johns Education building, if that building should have been a totally contemporary building. Committee Member Gladson stated it was like looking at art, and two people would hate it and three would love it. Committee Member Woollett stated that was not what the DRC was there for, they were speaking of preserving the historic district whether they liked it or not. Some of the old stuff was awful, but their job was to preserve it. His father was one of the people who established the Cultural Heritage Board in L.A. and he was doing a project in Santa Ana and they were looking at the old Santa Ana Hotel and his client wanted to tear it down. He had taken his father by the building and asked if the building was worth saving, he had stated no it was terrible tear it down and they had different rules then. In Old Towne it didn't matter if it was bad, if it was old it was kept. He felt it was so important in preserving the historic value of the area and if was difficult if they were continually mitigating what was historic and what was not. Committee Member Cathcart stated downtown Anaheim used to have a soul and that was not the case anymore. Committee Member Woollett agreed and stated it was all fake. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 3, 2008 Page 9 of 28 Committee Member McCormack stated it came back to materials. Something was stated earlier about harm and every time he heard that word it always equated back to financial implications. In the project last week due to financial implications the applicant wanted a variance and what type of value could be placed on that harm. It was always a sliding scale and from his point of view it was all about materials. In the case of Disneyland they tried really hard to make the park look thematic or old. Committee Member Woollett stated the same thing had been done in Brea, there was so much that was constructed that they had wanted to look old but it had not. Mr. Ryan stated Committee Member Woollett's concerns were in having a false sense of history. He had written an Ordinance on Demolition by Neglect and he felt that deferred maintenance was an issue that had not been addressed. He felt that one of the problems was in cases where all landscape had been removed and the entire site had been paved and another issue was deferred maintenance. The law school situation was directly related to deferred maintenance on the building. Committee Member McCormack stated on deferred maintenance there could be an iconic landscape typified by turf and maintenance and mowing and trimming. With deferred maintenance the landscape could not survive with that mentality. Landscape that was more native that would not require any maintenance would be more appropriate. There was the mentality of the people in not wanting the downside of that type of landscape which in the winter looked dead and dry. There was landscape that could not survive in a deferred maintenance situation and how would they address that. He grappled with how to deal with landscape issues in Old Towne. There was a mentality in the 40's and 50's that was not about native landscape it was about the Oasis, about Fig and Orange trees and how would they change that mentality now with issues of water and heat gain. Many of the trees would die and what would be put in to replace those. Many times it appeared that the landscape was not important, and he and Committee Member Cathcart fought that. He felt in terms of the exterior aesthetics it was important that it complimented the architecture and it would be important to be talked about. Committee Member Woollett stated the other issue was hardscape and there had been problems with that. Committee Member Cathcart stated in visiting old neighborhoods that had some landscape that was trimmed and manicured and some landscape that was not, it was the same era and the same City and how would that be dealt with. Committee Member Gladson stated that would be through code enforcement. Ms. Pehoushek stated in the months ahead they would be working out a game plan to sort out all the comments and organizing them by category and tackling the issues topic by topic. They wanted to arrive at a point where they would have made refinements that were ready to show the world. They would hold public workshops organized by the different topics and present their solutions and obtain reactions. They would then retool their documents and move onto the next topic. This would take place over many months and it would come back to them. Committee Member Cathcart stated he saw it as a moving target that would never be finished as there would always be changes, and it was good that they were getting on the movement. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 3, 2008 Page 10 of 28 Ms. Pehoushek stated they needed to start somewhere. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated it was a living document and there would be changes in response to the way it was administered and the document would be amended. They would complete the first cut and then move on from there. Committee Member Woollett stated it was important to have a place where it could be stopped and approved; otherwise it became more and more difficult to use. Ms. Pehoushek stated she had not spoken about the General Plan Update; there were components such as the cultural resources elements that were new and supported what they had spoken about. The General Plan would be used to guide them. She welcomed additional comments from the DRC Members. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated they had taken the comments from the last meeting regarding the Landscape Conditions and comments being presented in the Staff report and it would take them a few weeks to get that implemented. They could expect that after the first of the year to have that information included as had been requested. Committee Member McCormack made a motion to adjourn the Administrative Session. Administrative Session adjourned at 5:35 p.m. SECOND:Bill Cathcart AYES:Bill Cathcart, Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Joe Woollett NOES:None ABSTAIN:None ABSENT:None RECUSED:Chair Wheeler MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 3, 2008 Page 11 of 28 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. CONSENT ITEMS: 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 public request specific items to be removed from the Consent Items for separate action. 1) APPROVAL OF MINUTES: November 19, 2008 2) DRC No. 4377-08 - U.S. HEALTH WORKS SIGNAGE A proposal to allow installation of a Can sign. 1045 North Tustin Street Staff Contact: Robert Garcia, (714) 744-7231, r~arcia(a~cityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination Public Comment None. Chair Wheeler asked the Committee Members if anyone wanted to discuss Item No. 2? There was no further discussion. Committee Member Gladson made a motion to approve, by consent, the minutes from the November 19, 2008, Design Review Committee Meeting with corrections as noted; and to approve DRC No. 4377-08, U.S. Health Works Signage, subject to the conditions in the Staff Report. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 3, 2008 Page 12 of 28 SECOND: Bill Cathcart AYES: Bill Cathcart, Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 3, 2008 Page 13 of 28 AGENDA ITEMS: Continued Items: 3) DRC No. 4357-08 -TACO BELL FACADE CHANGE A proposal to remodel an existing fast food restaurant. 4035 West Chapman Avenue Staff Contact: Robert Garcia, (714) 744-7231, r a~(a,cityoforange.org Item Continued from DRC Meeting of October 1, 2008 DRC Action: Final Determination Committee Member Gladson stated she had not been present on October 1, 2008, when the application was initially presented. She had read the minutes and was up to speed on the item. Associate Planner, Robert Garcia, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Pedro Blanco, address on file, stated they had raised the tower. The main facade of the building faced Chapman and originally the tower was lower and it was a recommended modification to lower the tower on Lewis to line up with the parapet and to raise the tower at the main facade. He concurred with Staff on their presentation. Public Comment None. Committee Member Cathcart stated Community Services had submitted their notes. The Agapanthus was pointed out; however, the Coprosma repen needed to be added. It all appeared O.K. with that addition and the landscape plan would be submitted to Community Services. Committee Member McCormack stated the Landscape Plan was titled Existing Landscape and asked if it was in fact existing? Mr. Garcia stated it was the landscape that currently existed at the site. Committee Member McCormack asked if anything new was being added to the landscape? Mr. Blanco stated any additions would be minor due to modifications of the building. Committee Member Cathcart stated the plans showed Agapanthus 1-gallon, Nandina 5-gallon and Impatients 4" pots; however, there was not anything for Coprosma repen. Committee Member McCormack stated it could be called existing landscape, but it would be better to title it Existing/Proposed Landscape Plans. He had seen odd things happen when a contractor read Existing Landscape Plans and when Community Services went to the site it could City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 3, 2008 Page 14 of 28 be questioned and at that point there would already be a certificate of occupancy and the proposed landscape would never get done. Committee Member Cathcart stated the irrigation plan could be handled in the same way. Committee Member McCormack asked if the zero curb ramp was new? Mr. Blanco stated it was new. The handicap access was not adequate and they were adding a fully accessible ramp with pedestrian access from the street. A wheelchair could access from the street also. Committee Member McCormack stated there was a design element that happened with going to a zero curb and when it went against the building the footing would be exposed. He suggested adding a curb or something there for a cleaner detail. He asked if the wheel stops were necessary? Mr. Blanco stated wheel stops were necessary. Mr. Garcia stated they were not required by code. Committee Member McCormack asked if an area, which he pointed out on the drawings, was a new curb? Mr. Blanco stated portions of that area were new. Committee Member McCormack suggested moving the curb to the same area that the wheel stops were at and to eliminate the wheel stops. It had been done at the library and worked out great. The curb would be a wheel stop. Mr. Blanco stated if Staff agreed with that they could eliminate the wheel stops. The depth of the parking space would be less than 18'. Committee Member Gladson stated there could be an overhang which would accommodate the space requirement. Mr. Blanco stated the parking space would be 16' deep with a 2' overhang. Committee Member Woollett stated there would be a distance of 16' from the curb to the back of the space and a 3' overhang, giving them a 19' space. The problem was with the curb and wheel stop is that it gathered trash which would need to be gathered by hand and it rarely happened. Mr. Blanco stated the sidewalk would also be wider. Chair Wheeler stated at the drive-up window it showed that the stone turned into stucco at the window. He suggested adding a bit of a stone return to give more depth. Mr. Blanco stated the stone had a 2" depth and there was room to bring the stone out a little bit. The plan showed where the edge was and they could bring it over more. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 3, 2008 Page 15 of 28 Committee Member Gladson pointed out an area on the plans that she was not sure of the material used and she had found it to be metal. Committee Member McCormack asked if there had been a Queen Palm tree issue with the menu board and how had that been addressed? Chair Wheeler stated the proposed project had not called for a new menu board. Mr. Blanco stated the existing menu board and the Queen Palm tree would not be changed. Committee Member Woollett stated on the west side of the building, he pointed out the area on the plans, and asked what was happening in that area? Mr. Blanco stated there was a window. Committee Member Woollett asked what the traffic lane was for? Mr. Blanco stated it was a return back to the parking lot from the drive-up window. It was an existing lane. Chair Wheeler made a motion to approve DRC No. 4357-08, Taco Bell Facade Change, subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report and with the following conditions: 1. The landscape and irrigation plans be labeled Existing and Proposed, and that the plant palette include Coprosma repen with its size and spacing. 2. The area at the entry where the handicap ramp occurred that the edging be cleaned up. 3. The wheel stops be removed and the sidewalk width be increased. 4. That the drive-up window stone treatment on both sides be increased on the north to add a 6" return to the stone finish. SECOND: Bill Cathcart AYES: Bill Cathcart, Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 3, 2008 Page 16 of 28 New Agenda Items: 4) DRC No. 4396-08 - FA~'ADE REMODEL OF TENANT SPACE C-5 AT THE BLOCK A proposal to modify the facade of the tenant space C-5 (Ron Jon) at The Block. 20 City Boulevard West, Unit C-5 Staff Contact: Chad Ortlieb, (714) 744-7237, cortlieb(a,cityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination Senior Planner, Chad Ortlieb, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Ken McKently, stated had the building not been the Ron Jon's Surf Shop they would have kept the existing facade and made minor modifications. Due to the unique metal panel wave configuration they were forced to remove that which made a huge impact on their budget. It was consistent with what was going on at the block. The design was clean and there were shadows in the canopy. The building worked well with Off Fifth which was directly across the way from the location. Public Comment None. Committee Member McCormack asked if the thematic surfers had been removed? Mr. McKently stated the existing facade had two layers of corrugated metal to create the wave; they would be straightening the parapet out and adding a smooth finish. The existing show window would be kept and a new entrance would be added at the south side of the building facing the parking lot. All of the thematic frontage was being removed. The new tenant, a clothing store, had a whole different aesthetic. Committee Member McCormack stated there was a transformer that had not shown up on the plan elevations. Mr. McKently stated it was existing. The intent of the landscape was to maintain the landscape as it had existed with the exception of removing some landscape where the southerly entrance was being added. They would lose one tree; he pointed out the tree on the plans. Committee Member McCormack asked if the tree would be replanted on site? Mr. McKently stated they had looked into that, however, were told it was difficult to transplant Palm trees. Committee Member Cathcart stated it was easy to transplant a Palm tree as they were fibrously rooted. Committee Member McCormack stated it was probably one of the easiest plants to transplant. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 3, 2008 Page 17 of 28 Chair Wheeler asked if it would be possible to put together a booklet of photographs they might have of Ron Jon's and give it to the library. Mr. McKently stated looking at the project it had been 10 years and had run its course and it was such a unique project. Committee Member McCormack stated if the new modifications would be modified in another 10 years? Mr. McKently stated it could be; in retail with the next tenant changes could occur. Committee Member McCormack stated the handicap access was to and from the old entrance. Mr. McKently showed where the new entrance would be and where the access was. Depending on building codes it could be necessary to change that access. If it was the case an additional ramp would be added. There were many ways to access the handicap area. Committee Member McCormack stated there were various ways to address the access and it would be a shame to have to re-stripe the parking area to accommodate any changes. Committee Member Gladson stated they could not tell the Committee who the new tenant would be, which was fine. The playfulness of the space was something she always appreciated, the creativity which the Block was known for. She encouraged that the applicant look into incorporating some elements of playfulness back into the new design. Dependent on the tenant that might be something that may not happen. She concurred that is was important to document the fun surf store. Someone would ask what that may have looked like in the event someone else wanted to use the ideas. Committee Member McCormack stated the demographics of The Block were a young crowd. The buildings were a playful, Googie-type design and the whole thing was supposed to be a block. With curbing and paving and it was set up as a typical tract home in Southern California with billboards of the 50's and 60's. The billboards were supposed to have community leaders on them and that had all changed. He personally thought it was a loss in the playfulness. Mr. McKently stated in regard to the proposed tenanting of the project and what had been happening over the years, there had been a change in the demographics. Whether it migrated to other parts of The Block it was unclear at this point. Chair Wheeler stated he had walked through the Virgin Megastore and it appeared that they were getting ready to leave. Mr. McKently stated as with every other owner and developer they were trying to build their spaces and keep them filled. Committee Member McCormack stated the building had significant freeway visibility and he asked if there was a lighting concept? The thematic store had lighting that was uplifted, and the lighting went away as it meant nothing to the new design and he asked if there was an equal upgraded lighting concept with the proposed project? City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 3, 2008 Page 18 of 28 Mr. McKently stated there were currently lights that ran along the building. There were two large sconces at the entrance with the sign to be key. It was possible to suggest something more dramatic with the lighting. The other side had low lights that were in the landscape that would shine upward. The nice thing about the new entrance was that it would have the sign and there would be interest created there. Chair Wheeler asked if the DRC would review the sign program? Mr. Ortlieb stated if the sign fit within the current sign program the DRC would not review the sign program. Chair Wheeler suggested that a lighting plan be submitted with the sign program as something that could be reviewed and approved over the counter. Committee Member Woollett stated he understood the walls, which he pointed to, were existing and the metal would be pulled off of those walls with a new finish being applied. He asked what a line that was creating a shadow was? Mr. McKently stated it was the cornice. They were attempting to preserve the existing roof and build out from the existing wall. There would be a cap that was thicker in some places. He reviewed and explained the roof and parapet area with Committee Member Woollett. There were three main projections with the entries and a stepped area, which he pointed out on the plans. Committee Member Woollett asked what the underside of the canopy would be? Mr. McKently stated it was a similar solid material that would have recessed down lights that was approximately a foot thick, just enough for the lights. Committee Member Woollett asked if there would be any downspouts in that area? Mr. McKently stated it would be a drip; there was not a deep enough flat surface to make the downspouts work. They had the area that wrapped around which was difficult to slope. The water would be diverted from the main entrance. Committee Member Woollett stated the window was an existing window. Mr. McKently stated they would try to maintain that window. The tenant would typically not have such a window as they would prefer space on the walls to stock merchandise. Chair Wheeler stated the canopy appeared to have quite a cantilever. Mr. McKently stated there should be another line on the drawing, it had projected further out. Where the doors were located it would drop back 8' before it would go into full vestibule. There would be a deep shadow and then it would thin out. There would be two wide flanges that would be out-riggered from the back of the vestibule with a fascia and a structural beam. Aesthetically they wanted to keep everything horizontal. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 3, 2008 Page 19 of 28 Chair Wheeler stated the proposed project reminded him of the old Bullocks in Pasadena. Mr. McKently stated his offices were in Pasadena. Committee Member McCormack stated often times they looked at a use and was the architecture appropriate; here they had the architecture but not the use. They knew it was retail, and Mr. McKently stated the tenant wanted to pile merchandise in a lot of space. Mr. McKently stated that was for any tenant that wanted to use wall space. Committee Member McCormack stated they had a somewhat non-thematic design and they would soon know who the tenant was. He grappled with the question of was the use appropriate to the architecture. The one that was leaving was very thematic and this project was the other extreme. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated Lisa Kim with the Redevelopment Department had indicated that they could talk about who the retailer would be; they had heard it time and again not to say anything. Mr. McKently stated the sign was somewhat a giveaway. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated the new tenant would be Last Call Neiman Marcus. Mr. McKently stated their sign was very square and the sign related to the shape it sat on. Chair Wheeler asked if the new tenant would be content with the somewhat beachy landscape that was around the perimeter of the building? Mr. McKently stated it was interesting as he initially felt they would be changing the landscape. What was across the way was very generic and they proposed to leave it. Chair Wheeler asked if it was the consensus of the Committee to ask for photo documentation of the previous tenant for submission to the library? Committee Member Woollett stated he would agree to make it a suggestion. Committee Member Gladson stated she was okay with that. Committee Member Woollett made a motion to approve DRC No. 4396-08, Facade Remodel of Tenant Space C-5 at the Block, subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report and with the following suggestions: 1. Color photos of the existing building be kept for the City of Orange archives. 2. The Palm tree that was to be removed be replanted. And with the following condition: 1. An exterior lighting plan shall be submitted with the signage plan for Staff review. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 3, 2008 Page 20 of 28 Committee Member McCormack asked if they could add something regarding the exploration of the handicap ramp or was that something that would be handled through Staff? Mr. Ortlieb stated it would be handled through Building plan check to verify it met code; if Committee Member McCormack felt there was a design issue he could address that. Committee Member McCormack stated he felt it would become an issue as they were putting in anew entry and handicap access to that entry would be an issue. Committee Member Woollet amended his motion to add: 1. If an accessible ramp was added to the south entrance, it should be reviewed by the Planning Department. SECOND: Adrienne Gladson AYES: Bill Cathcart, Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 3, 2008 Page 21 of 28 5) DRC No. 4397-08 - TUSKATELLA CENTER FACADE REMODEL A proposal to remodel the facade of the Tuskatella Shopping Center with the exception of the individual pad tenants. 1303-1549 E. Katella Avenue (Northwest corner of Katella and Tustin Avenue) Staff Contact: Chad Ortlieb, (714) 744-7237, cortlieb(a,cityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination Senior Planner, Chad Ortlieb, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Darrel Hebenstreit, address on file, stated the applicant had a building permit for a project that they had not wanted to build. The project had been in the works for several years. He had not wanted to disagree with Staff, however, they were still discussing the parking issue as the building permit they carried had not dealt with the parking issue. There was some nomenclature issues in regard to how much of Building A could be removed and still be maintained as a remodel vs. being a demolition and rebuild. Mr. Ortlieb might have one thing in his head and in the Staff Report and they would not want to get into a situation with zoning in consideration of Building A being a remodel rather than being a rebuild. Mr. Ortlieb stated another driving factor was the outdoor dining area and how much parking would be needed for that additional space. If the applicant chose not to go with the outdoor dining area and to rebuild the food tenant and there was some way the project would not go before the Zoning Administrator, it would probably need another condition that would need to be added to the Staff Report. Mr. Hebenstreit stated the most flexible option would be to go before the Zoning Administrator. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated that would be the most expeditious way to go, they could get the numbers that would be entered into the record which would show the number of parking spaces and what the required number was, and there could be an approved deviation for whatever reason that was. Mr. Hebenstreit asked if Ms. Aranda Roseberry felt there was much risk in going to the Zoning Administrator? Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated the Zoning Administrator was a Staff position and for parking it was an administrative approval on his part. To explain the public hearing it would be similar to Planning Commission, where property owners and tenants within 300' would be notified and the public hearing was held in the same room as the DRC meeting on a Wednesday afternoon and the Zoning Administrator would make a finding at that time. For parking, it would require the Zoning Administrator to make a determination and it would not require a public hearing. For that it was very simple. At a Staff level they would not have the ability to just sign it off as there was some deviation. Committee Member Woollett questioned if the existing parking situation, in regard to how it was utilized, was reviewed in arriving at the parking requirements. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 3, 2008 Page 22 of 28 Mr. Hebenstreit stated the analysis was based on square footage and counts. Mr. Ortlieb stated when the parking requirement was over 10% it would require a shared parking analysis. Lastly he reviewed a photo of the existing site that had a large overhang of the shops and there was some indentation and horizontal relief with a reddish shingled roof. It was set back from both Tustin and Katella. The project was exempt from CEQA as it was an existing facility. Staff felt the facade remodel was in conformance with the evaluation criteria. Staff was recommending Condition No. 4 that the tower elements be reduced to 32', which was the maximum height without a variance. They were also requiring the applicant to obtain a letter from waste management for the trash collection behind the center. The proposed project would be a recommendation to the Zoning Administrator. Mr. Hebenstreit stated he had been made aware that there were questions regarding screening of the mechanical equipment. He presented an exhibit of photos that were taken from across the street on Katella. They identified any areas that had visibility of mechanical equipment and in looking at most of the issues the equipment was not visible from various vantage points. The changes to the center would be increasing the parapet height and that would hide any visibility issues. He reviewed the plans and drawings with the Committee Members and gave them an overview of the proposed changes for the center, including the hadscape changes and landscape additions. The buildings sat so close to the curb in some areas that they had been hit by delivery trucks. They wanted to create a sense of separation between the parking lot and the building. The store fronts would be completely redone. The goal was to develop something that gave a sense of separate vertical pieces. The applicant had a full set of drawings and a building permit in hand and their offices were directly across the street and they had not wanted to look at something that they were not pleased with. Applicant, Jill Anderson, address on file, stated they were sick about the amount of money and time that had been put into the project, but at the end of the day they were not happy and they had gone to another architect three weeks after obtaining permits to get something that they were happy with. Mr. Hebenstriet stated the major tenants were remaining on board, many of the smaller tenants had cycled through without their leases being renewed. Some of the comments that had been received from the tenants had been that they were going to go through the remodel and only get what had been initially presented. In a nut shell, in regard to the mechanical equipment, there was only one area he felt might be an issue. It was with an exhaust blower which sat on the top, it had an equipment screen but at certain angles it was not completely hidden. Unless someone knew it was there it would not be immediately visible. They had plenty of parapet changes. There was the Del Taco and El Pollo Loco that would not be included in their remodel. They were hopeful to get enhancements along the ground plane line and they would like to get enhancements at the main entry area. From a handicap standpoint the accessible route was being maintained, there was not a lot of opportunity to change it. The grade in the parking lot was very steep. The permits that were issued worked with the requirement. There would be some restriping for the areas that had not met code. Ms. Anderson stated the outdoor seating had been a request from the DRC upon their initial submission and they had wanted to meet the requests of the DRC. They could go either way to maintain the outdoor seating or convert it to parking space. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 3, 2008 Page 23 of 28 Mr. Hebenstriet stated the goal was to get the project under construction in the January range, the project would move rather quickly. Ms. Anderson stated Mr. Ortlieb had been very patient and they had not been very happy with the original plans. Their former architect was from Colorado and he could not get the picture of what they were attempting to get to. Architects Orange were able to get to what they wanted and they would never go out of the state again and they felt really good about the new plan. Mr. Ortlieb stated this time around it was quicker review with a recommendation. Public Comment None. Committee Member Cathcart stated the first time the proposed project had been presented they had wound up trying to redesign it. It had missed the boat on a lot of areas; he was pleased with the new project. Committee Member Woollett was pleased that the applicant had gone back and spent the money and taken the time and effort as the location was a very important corner of the City. The center had been there for a long time and it was a refreshing approach. Committee Member McCormack stated he was pleased with the project and he would have liked for the towers to have remained higher. Mr. Hebenstriet stated it was only 2', and he had not wanted to apply for a variance for such a small increase. Committee Member McCormack suggested adding landscape, the street scape had tall shapes. Mr. Hebenstriet stated they could add some vine pockets to green it up a bit more. Committee Member McCormack suggested exploring where they could add some vertical landscape. Committee Member Cathcart stated the Italian Cypress would give more depth and shadows. Mr. Hebenstriet agreed with the addition of additional landscape and felt it would help with creating a distinction between the building and the parking lot. Committee Member McCormack stated there was another type of roof element, and pointed out the area he was speaking to on the plans. He asked if there was a return in that area as it had not appeared to have any depth, and he asked if the element was being repeated? Mr. Hebenstriet stated he had not felt it was either right or wrong in either fashion. He felt it would be weak if it went to a single in the middle and they were looking to get a bit of variety. It was a fairly repetitive piece. They had wanted to have some simple pieces somewhere. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 3, 2008 Page 24 of 28 Committee Member Gladson asked to review the material board and asked for clarification on the concrete uses. Committee Member McCormack asked if they anticipated using any of the building colors in the hardscape? As an example, Victoria Gardens had constantly changing hardscape areas which added another level of interest. It was not that costly as a variety of methods such as saw cuts and sandblasting could be used. Mr. Hebenstriet stated they had not finished the hardscape plans. The goal would be to break it up from the sea of gray. He had not had luck with using the thin top coat coloring and he would anticipate they could use sandblasting and saw cuts to add variety. Committee Member McCormack stated at the library they had masked letters in the hardscape, he was not suggesting that be done for their project, however, there could be edge bands added. Mr. Hebenstriet stated they would want to incorporate some color and material changes in the hardscape. Unfortunately they were unable to add more hardscape as it would change their square footage and would be virtually impossible to bring the storm drain up to current standards. Committee Member Gladson stated she had a question regarding the, aerial photo. She had not seen the previously approved plan and commended the property owner for taking another step to get to what they wanted. They had spoken about screening, there was a mobile home park behind the building and were there any thoughts to upgrade the back side of the buildings to provide those residents with something better to look at? Mr. Hebenstriet stated they were essentially bringing the fronts around the edge. The intent would be to repaint; however, no other changes were planned for that area. It was not a part of the project. They would be returning with a sign program and they intended to re-work some of the pylons along the street that were very old. They would definitely be providing a more custom sign program. Committee Member McCormack asked if there was a lighting concept that went hand in hand with the sign program? Mr. Hebenstriet stated they had not dealt too much with lighting. There would be light fixtures on the facade elements. Normally they would be doing selective lighting; however, they were not able to change the parking lot lights. The Police Department had stated that they completely meet the rules or they should not touch the current lighting. Generally there would be light thrown on some of the major pieces and there was not a lot of space to add ground fixtures. They intended to use bracketed sconces that would throw some light. Chair Wheeler stated they could use the planters to add some lighting. Committee Member Gladson stated the sign program would also bring elements of lighting to the project. She was totally in support of Staffs recommendation in allowing the applicant flexibility in allowing more that 18" sign lettering; 18" was too small. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 3, 2008 Page 25 of 28 Ms. Anderson stated Smart and Final had an issue with the sign size. Mr. Ortlieb stated they worked with El Pollo Loco as a pad tenant on their signage, and they would be working with CVS Pharmacy. Mr. Hebenstreit stated they had a tenant that had wanted to add an exclamation point to their signage. Mr. Ortlieb stated the exclamation mark had gone over 18" and they had left it off. Mr. Hebenstreit stated there was not a hidden agenda for signage. He would not have a problem with adding lighting and signage together and presenting that to Staff. He had been working on the construction plans for two weeks and if there were to be any changes he had hoped to add them sooner than later. The intent was to resubmit the project to the City by January ls` Chair Wheeler stated that one of his pet peeves was on the raised parapets; he asked how far the returns went back, as he didn't like false fronts and wanted to see areas with real depth? Mr. Hebenstreit stated all of those parts Chair Wheeler referred to would be taken as far back as they could to the store front line, which was 7' or 8'. They had not wanted situations where they would impose any loads on the existing roofs or create water issues. They were very careful about that element. Chair Wheeler suggested bringing the cornice back; that it not be cut off at the edge but mitered around the corner to maintain the turn. He assumed the dome was a full dome and the tower was the same. Mr. Hebenstreit stated he was correct on the dome and towers. Committee Member McCormack asked how difficult would it be to maintain the tower height? Mr. Hebenstreit stated he had not wanted to apply for a CUP to gain 2' of tower. Ms. Anderson stated in the old permit she had thought that the towers were higher. Mr. Hebenstreit stated they had a building permit that had tower elements that went to 39'. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated they could have some relief based on how tall the tower elements were. In reviewing the roof plan there was a percentage, which she felt was approximately 5% of the roof area, to allow them to maintain the tower height. Mr. Hebenstreit stated it would be way below 5%. Committee Member McCormack stated in adding vertical Palm trees or Italian Cypress, the tower elements would be higher than the landscape. Mr. Hebenstreit stated he would prefer Italian Cypress trees as he felt it was a better match for the building design. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 3, 2008 Page 26 of 28 Committee Member McCormack stated on the Italian Cypress tree guards could be added. At Downtown Disney their Italian Cypress trees came out of avase-shaped form. To add what he referred to as jewelry, added another interesting element to the landscape. Chair Wheeler stated the Italian Cypress trees in the Disneyland parking lot had steel poles to maintain them vertically. Committee Member McCormack stated lighting could be added as an additional element. The architecture was done well and it would be nice to add to the landscape some additional elements. Chair Wheeler asked if there had been a thought on how to control the shopping carts at Smart and Final. Mr. Hebenstreit stated no he had not. Ms. Anderson stated they really needed to help Smart and Final with the shopping carts. In the previous plan there was a shopping cart corral which they could add. Ms. Aranda Roseberry presented to Mr. Ortlieb a document that gave further clarification on the tower height issue. Mr. Ortlieb stated there had been a precedent set with the Citrus Medical Building on Chapman that was completed 1-2 years ago. They used the height definition from the City Code that exempted chimneys, electrical towers, and other integral parts of the building that occupied less than 5% of the roof area. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated that project had a tower element; generally they found that information in the Standards, however, this was found in the definition for building height and was an easy miss for Planners. For the proposed project they could go higher than 32' as long as it was less than 5% of the overall roof area. It was an integral part of the design. Chair Wheeler stated he felt it was the consensus of the Committee to allow for the higher tower elements as presented. Committee Member Gladson stated on the parking situation it might not be necessary to go through all the administrative approvals once they had all the parking numbers. Mr. Hebenstreit stated he felt they would follow through with that as it would give the property owners flexibility down the road and was worth the relatively minimal risk. Committee Member Gladson made a motion to approve DRC No. 4397-08, Tuskatella Center Facade Remodel, with a recommendation to the Zoning Administrator, subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report and with the following conditions: 1. The height of the towers to be above 32'. 2. The parapets have a mitered return at the corners. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 3, 2008 Page 27 of 28 3. The Italian Cypress trees be considered or other vertical trees to be planted along the face of the building. And with the following suggestions: 1. To explore adding elements of color and texture to the hardscape areas. 2. To explore the addition of tree jewelry as an additional architectural element. SECOND: Tim McCormack AYES: Bill Cathcart, Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 3, 2008 Page 28 of 28 ADJOURNMENT: Committee Member Woollett made a motion to adjourn to the next regular scheduled meeting on Wednesday, December 17, 2008 at 5:00 p.m. The meeting adjourned at 7:21 p.m. SECOND: Bill Cathcart AYES: Bill Cathcart, Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES:None ABSTAIN:None ABSENT:None MOTION CARRIED.