Loading...
09-17-2008 DRC MinutesCITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES -FINAL 17 September 2008 Committee Members Present: Adrienne Gladson Tim McCormack Craig Wheeler Joe Woollett Committee Members Absent: Bill Cathcart Staff in Attendance: Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager Howard Morris, Senior Landscape Coordinator Sonal Thakur, Assistant Planner Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary Administrative Session - 5:00 P.M. The Committee met for an Administrative Session beginning at 5:12 p.m. Planning Manager, Leslie Aranda Roseberry, reminded the Committee Members to turn in their sign up sheets for the ethics training. Committee Member McCormack stated he had turned it in for the meeting that was in session and he would need to sign up for another meeting. The Committee reviewed the minutes from the September 3, 2008 meeting. Corrections were noted. Chair Wheeler opened the discussion for policy and procedural information which involved the public comment made by Mr. Frankel at the previous meeting. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated she had not been present at the meeting, however, she had read the summary from the minutes. As a body, they were not required to engage in a conversation with anybody that commented on a project, nor were they required to answer any of their questions. They could ask or answer questions in order to obtain the necessary information to enable the Committee Members to make a proper decision. The example that Mr. Frankel had cited had been discussed thoroughly in regard to how the standards were or were not met. When a project was approved in Old Towne the Committee Members were stating that in the determination the project had met both the Design Guidelines and the Secretary of Interior Standards. The findings were provided in the Staff Report that they needed to make, and as a practice they had not provided a resolution for the DRC. Staff provided a resolution to the Planning Commission. For Planning Commission, for example on a CUP application, there would be four findings in addition to the general consistency finding that must be made and those findings were very specific and noted in the resolution. The findings could change a bit through the testimony of the evening, but for the most part it was written down and generally adopted. A resolution was not provided on items that were presented to the DRC. It had never been suggested that a resolution be provided, if it was something that the Committee Members desired she could look into reformatting the Staff Reports. The purpose of the information provided was to give the Committee Members the information to make a determination. If specific evidence was needed City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for September 17, 2008 Page 2 of 25 to show why support was given for the various findings, that could be done based on the Committee Members request. Committee Member Woollett stated he agreed with Ms. Aranda Roseberry. He felt it was a good idea to be specific when there was a reference to guidelines or standards when they were brought up. The thing that interested him most was sometimes the OTPA would refer to an area that he was not familiar with, it could be taken out of context, he could review what was presented and take that information into consideration if it made sense. When information was presented that appeared invalid it was difficult to speak to that information. Ms. Aranda Roseberry asked if Committee Member Woollett was referring to the Secretary of Interior Standards or to the Design Guidelines. Committee Member Woollett stated they could be in a situation where a reference would be made to something they had not studied recently, either the Staff had not felt it was of importance or it could be an issue that was being quoted out of context. The only option they had would be to disregard the comment or take more time to research the issue. Committee Member Gladson stated she considered the testimony of anyone who spoke, be it the OTPA or other individuals, and she would use that information in the decision making process. Ultimately the Committee Members made the call, to some extent, on whether the project presented met the guidelines and standards and from their knowledge of those as a collective thought of five. There could be value in discussing the issue more specifically or coming up with a way to draft a motion, however, procedurally they would not want to engage in any dialogue. If it was mentioned it would seem that they would need to take time out to review that. Committee Member Woollett stated if the OTPA made reference to something he was not familiar with and it was not in the Staff Report, he often would make the assumption that Staff had not picked it up or it was not a relevant issue. Committee Member McCormack stated he felt they all had done that to some extent. If Staff could weigh in one way or another on those issues from a Staff point of view if would be helpful. Staff could provide some insight as to why they felt strongly that the information mattered or not, which would assist him in his decision making. Committee Member Gladson stated there could be value in taking time during the deliberation to speak to the issue presented and if necessary to review the standard or guideline that was in question. She agreed with Committee Member Woollett that information was sometimes misquoted and if she felt that way she would generally disregard it. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated at the Planning Commission meetings when a member of the public would want to discuss or have questions, Staff took their cue from the Chair. If the Chair asked Staff to elaborate on any of the topics that had been presented based on an issue of not meeting code, for example, Staff would give further testimony on that issue. If the Chair had not asked for Staff's input they would remain quiet. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for September 17, 2008 Page 3 of 25 Chair Wheeler stated he could try to do that and if a questionable concern was presented they could ask Staff to explain their position. It would be a good idea to have a copy of the Secretary of Interior's Standards available for reference. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated Committee Member Gladson had stated that the motions could be crafted differently for projects in Old Towne. The maker of the motion could state: a motion was made for DRC No._ and that the project presented met the Old Towne Standards and the Secretary of Interior's Standards, or something along those lines; up until now that had been inferred. If the project had been approved, it met the Standards and if denied it had not met the Standards. She stated she could craft language for the recommended action that would include that verbiage. Chair Wheeler stated he agreed that would be a good process. Committee Member McCormack stated when the OTPA brought up an issue and it was not discussed, the OTPA felt they were being ignored. Having it addressed in the report would assist the Committee Members. Committee Member Gladson stated the Standard and Guideline issues were being presented to ensure they would go on record in the event that there was an appeal or a challenge of the decision. Chair Wheeler asked if there was any further discussion. There was none. Committee Member McCormack made a motion to adjourn the Administrative Session. Administrative Session adjourned at 5:30 p.m. SECOND: Joe Woollett AYES: Tim McCormack, Adrienne Gladson, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Bill Cathcart MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for September 17, 2008 Page 4 of 25 Regular Session - 5:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Committee Member Cathcart was absent 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: September 3, 2008 Committee Member Woollett made a motion to approve the minutes from the September 3, 2008 Design Review Committee Meeting with corrections as noted. SECOND: Adrienne Gladson AYES: Tim McCormack, Adrienne Gladson, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Bill Cathcart MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for September 17, 2008 Page 5 of 25 AGENDA ITEMS: New Agenda Items: 2) DRC No. 4362-08 -ORANGEWOOD CORPORATE PLAZA A proposal for a new sign program for amulti-tenant office business park. 2100-2200 West Orangewood Avenue Staff Contact: Sonal Thakur, 714-744-7239, sthakur(a~cityoforange.org Item removed from the consent calendar of September 17, 2008 and moved to the regular Agenda. DRC Action: Final Determination A reading of the Staff Report was waived. Committee Member McCormack stated for clarification on the existing sign locations and proposed sign locations he had noticed only one additional sign. He had reviewed the remainder of the exhibit which was straight-forward for existing signs and there were building and free- standing signage which he assumed was the sign program. He wanted clarification on where the new signage was. Applicant, Jenny Hodges, address on file, stated the whole sign package was a comprehensive sign program for the entire property. It would encompass the new tenant signage, which was indicated on the site plan under proposed signs. They had not specifically shown that sign on the plans as that tenant would present their request and apply for their permit compliant to the sign program. Future applicants would be able to follow the sign design guidelines in order to apply for their signs. Assistant Planner, Sonal Thakur, stated the main reason for the sign program was that the anchor tenant had two elevations adjacent to their tenant space; however, one of the elevations that faced the parking lot also faced residential uses and trees. That tenant felt it would be a waste of signage if installed on that elevation; their proposal was to place signage on an elevation that was not adjacent to their tenant space. It would face the 57 freeway and a portion of the parking lot that was more visible. The policy was to allow signage on elevations adjacent to a tenant's space. Applicant, Trey Trask, address on file, stated the tenant occupied the ground floor and reviewed the plans with Committee Member McCormack. They wanted a sign on the elevation facing the 57 freeway. Chair Wheeler asked if he was correct in stating that the sign package was a proposal for current signage and set the standard for future signs? Ms. Hodges stated that was correct. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for September 17, 2008 Page 6 of 25 Committee Member Woollett stated it was a fundamental change to the sign program which would allow a future tenant to place signage on that elevation of the building. Ms. Hodges stated that was correct as long as it met the guidelines outlined in the sign program. Chair Wheeler stated it was important as the guidelines addressed the number of signs that could be located on a particular area. Ms. Hodges stated they had prepared a guideline that limited the number of signs as to not degrade the quality of the building and it would not take away from existing tenant signage. There was an issue that Vandorf was a first level tenant and on the west elevation they would only obtain visibility if the signage was on the upper level. Committee Member McCormack asked for clarification on how the applicant would handle the different square footage of each tenant space and how much signage they were allowed? He felt the sign program should have signage only on non-glazing areas as opposed to banded areas and that all of the signs would be the same size. Ms. Hodges stated there was a concern for limiting the dimensions of the size as different tenants had different logos and length of their name, and to specify that a particular square foot tenant space could only have a specifically sized size would limit them. They had limited the height of the signs. Committee Member McCormack stated he was looking at the architecture that had a certain height element that was very horizontal and he asked if there were stipulations that kept the sign can in keeping with the architectural style of the building? Ms. Hodges stated the sign height would never exceed the banded area. She reviewed those areas with Committee Member McCormack on the plans. She asked Ms. Thakur if the City code would allow placement of signs on glazing areas? Ms. Thakur stated the City code would not limit location; the code stated that the height be no more than 2/3 or the vertical distance. If they had a concern in keeping the signage primarily on the banded area, that could be added as a condition. Committee Member McCormack asked if they could change the language regarding the size limitations. Ms. Hodges stated if they determined where the sign areas would be, they would be stating that the sign would not exceed 2/3 of that area. She directed the Committee Members to look at page 6, No. 4, under sign area. Committee Member McCormack stated if the language was more specific it could be used as a working document and provide information regarding what a tenant could or could not do with their sign and would it work with the building architecture. Chair Wheeler asked how the area they were speaking about be described? City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for September 17, 2008 Page 7 of 25 Ms. Hodges stated they could call it out as non-glazing areas of the building or concrete sign band area. Committee Member McCormack clarified on the plans where the applicant was referring to. Chair Wheeler stated the language could read: the sign would remain within the concrete panel. Committee Member Gladson stated that would clarify the location. Ms. Hodges stated that was the intent, they would just want to clarify it in writing. Committee Member Woollett asked what would prevent other tenants from wanting to have their signage on the west exposure? Mr. Trask stated they were the building's landlord and they were not in the business of putting signs all over their buildings. The only reason they felt they could place signage on the west exposure was that the tenant was a big tenant for the building and it had been a part of the negotiations on their behalf. It was important for that tenant to have that signage in order to remain in the building. Committee Member Woollett stated he understood what the applicant was attempting to do; however, the City had no control over that. Ms. Hodges stated there was a comment in the proposal regarding sign priority. They could have 70 tenants in the building and not a1170 would have signage on that elevation. For that elevation there was a calculation based on square footage for the number of allowable signs. There could be more than one sign on that elevation, however, with the size of the Vandorf sign she doubted there would be another sign added. The total signage for the elevation could not exceed the linear allowance for the entire elevation. Committee Member Woollett asked Staff if they had any concerns in regard to multiple signs on the west elevation? Ms. Thakur stated there could be an additional condition that would limit additional signage on the west elevation and only allow signage for major tenants. The landlord would need to authorize an issuance of a permit. Chair Wheeler stated on page 6, item No. 3 read: wall signs for individual tenants shall not exceed one square foot per lineal foot of building elevation, and asked if that would cover the concern. Ms. Hodges stated that should cover any concerns. The west elevation was 140 square feet and there would be 140 square feet of allowable signage. Vandorf would take up a significant portion of that area. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for September 17, 2008 Page 8 of 25 Committee Member Woollett stated he noticed on the face of the east-facing building that there was a space where a sign had been removed and it was visible. He asked how they would address that. Ms. Hodges stated with individual letters there would be multiple penetrations on any surface that a sign had been placed on. It was the give and take of not having cabinet signs. There were ways to handle the repairs in a better manner, where the visibility of a sign being removed was minimal. Committee Member Woollett asked if the City had any recourse to take action when a sign was removed and the area not repaired? Ms. Thakur stated she was not aware of any action the City could take. Committee Member Gladson suggested language added to the sign program to address the sign removal process and repair of those areas. Ms. Hodges stated they could add it as part of the tenant's responsibility. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated if there was a property maintenance issue, regardless of the number of tenants, the City would contact the property owner and not the tenant. Staff would look to the property owner to insure that the property would be properly maintained and if the property owner had an agreement with the tenants they could address the issues with them. The maintenance issue could be a part of the sign program. Committee Member Gladson stated there was a condition on page 3 of the Sign Program that stated under tenant's responsibility that all work penetrations shall be repaired at the tenant's expense. Chair Wheeler stated he felt that referred to wall penetrations. Committee Member Woollett stated that the facility was an attractive facility and in his opinion one of the best in the City, and therefore, any flaws would be visible. Committee Member McCormack stated for clarification on the center identification monument signs he read those to be signs H and A on the plans. Ms. Hodges stated they were noted as existing signs and they were part of the signs for that building. The sign program indicated that there was one free-standing sign allowed, which was already in place and the purpose of noting that was to bring everything into one cohesive package. Committee Member McCormack reviewed the various signs that existed on the property with Ms. Hodges on the plans. He asked if there was a removable sign that advertised tenant space? Mr. Trask stated there was a removable leasing sign that was placed strategically. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for September 17, 2008 Page 9 of 25 Ms. Hodges stated the leasing sign was not included, as the City had regulations that allowed for that removable sign. Committee Member McCormack asked what would stop a potential client from negotiating very hard to get their name on the monument sign that could not accommodate all tenants? Ms. Hodges asked Staff if there was a permit required for vinyl signage going on and vinyl signage coming off. Ms. Thakur stated that could be handled at the counter with a request for a sign face change. Ms. Hodges stated the structure of the sign could not be changed, and if a tenant requested that their vinyl sign be added they would need to go through a review. She felt that P.S. Business Parks would not want to do that for one tenant. Committee Member McCormack asked for clarification on the free-standing signs? Ms. Hodges stated that there would be one free-standing sign permitted for each parcel and pointed out the lot that Committee Member McCormack was looking at was one entire parcel. Committee Member McCormack stated what confused him was the statement of the last line of the condition that read: limited to 15' overall height; and asked if the sign could be re-done to that height limit? Ms. Hodges stated it could be done, however, the tenant would need to apply for a change and there could not be any structural changes. The 15' was the code limit, in the event a tenant proposed a larger sign. Committee Member Gladson stated she was not a big fan of sign dancers and human sign holders and she was not certain what the City Code for those were; she asked Staff if it would be appropriate to add a condition restricting them? Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated there had been information prepared by the City Attorney for presentation to the City Council regarding signs or sign holding on a public right-of--way and she was not aware of what the result of that presentation was. Ms. Hodges stated they could add language to prohibit signs on a public right-of--way. Committee Member Gladson stated it was the human element that bothered her. Committee Member Woollett stated they could state that requirement on every sign project that was presented before them; however, questioned if it was appropriate? Chair Wheeler stated he felt it was inappropriate to attach that requirement to a sign program and that was the reason it was being presented to the City Council as a possible ordinance. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for September 17, 2008 Page 10 of 25 Chair Wheeler made a .motion to approve DRC No. 4362-08, Orangewood Corporate Plaza, subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report and with the following additional conditions: 1. Building signs to be located within the exposed aggregate concrete spandrel panels. 2. Repairs to the building face upon sign removal shall be completed in a manner as not to have the repair visible in excess of 20' away. SECOND: Joe Woollett AYES: Tim McCormack, Adrienne Gladson, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Bill Cathcart MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for September 17, 2008 Page 11 of 25 3) DRC No. 4314-07 -COURTYARD APARTMENTS A proposal to construct a new leasing office with a porch and covered overhead structure, and small parking area, in association with an existing apartment complex. 977 North Highland Street Staff Contact: Sonal Thakur, 714-744-7239, sthakur@cityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination Assistant Planner, Sonal Thakur, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Barry Cottle, address on file, stated he had purchased the property in 1996. The property was located behind the main Post Office. They had bought it on a foreclosure and at that time there were 99 vacant units and the units had no character to them. He and his partner had an office on-site for the first year and worked there everyday. They worked with the City to develop and rehab the property. The property contained 30% affordable units and there was no difference in the affordable units and the market rate units. The property was built in the 1960's and there were 256 units all within one complex and it had been built without an office. The office, he had been told, had been in different apartments that had moved over the years. They occupied an apartment at the front of the property and they remained in that location. An office was necessary to maintain a building of that size. There was no open space and when the City vacated the property on Locust Street they intended to build an office there. They were before the DRC to request construction of a new leasing office with an added patio area for tenant use. They were open to suggestions on windows and such. Applicant, Dan Long, address on file, stated the City Staff had been excellent to work with and always willing to answer his questions. Public Comment None. Chair Wheeler opened the item to discussion by the Committee. Committee Member Woollett asked how long ago had the street been abandoned and was the intent to allow the applicant to put a building on that site? Mr. Long stated in 1999 it was abandoned. Mr. Cottle stated it had been abandoned for the sole purpose of allowing them to add an office. Committee Member Woollett stated the parking appeared to be very limited, however, in adding the office they would not lose many spaces. Mr. Cottle stated they were also the management company and one of the things they had done was to conduct garage inspections for each of the units to ensure there was room to park a car; City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for September 17, 2008 Page 12 of 25 the garage floor had to contain vehicles or items that had wheels such as a bicycle or a stroller. The garages were not used for storage. In doing that, they had opened up street parking considerably. The tenants used locks that were issued through the management office and it was written in the tenant lease that the garage use was a privilege to be taken care of. Committee Member Woollett stated the area of the property had improved. Mr. Long stated the Staff Report mentioned there were 18-20 cars on each side of the street and the actual number was closer to 9-10 cars on the street. Chair Wheeler stated he was curious why they used unique material on the columns and suggested having all the columns the same. Mr. Long stated it was a design the architect chose that could be changed. Chair Wheeler stated it would make the property more consistent and feel united if the columns were all the same. It would not matter if they were slump stone or stucco. Ms. Thakur stated she believed the apartments had some similar treatments. Mr. Cottle stated there were 32 units with 3 designs that repeated themselves. Chair Wheeler asked if they proposed rounded window trim? Mr. Long stated it was intended to be flat rectangular to be consistent with the linear design of the existing buildings. Chair Wheeler suggested removing the mulleins on the windows and the divided lights and to clean up the busy windows. Committee Member Woollett asked if there was any precedent for the treatment of the columns? Chair Wheeler stated there had not been any precedent for the Dutch Gable either. Committee Member McCormack stated there was architectural, site, and space lighting. He pointed out an area on the plans he suggested where additional lighting could be added. Mr. Cottle stated when the original property was vacated in 1999 there was a street light that had been disconnected from the City system and added to a private meter and pointed out where the light was located that gave additional light to the portion of the property Committee Member McCormack was questioning. Committee Member McCormack stated typically the City of Orange street lighting barely illuminated the street and would not meet current standards. Mr. Cottle stated on their projects they would measure the lighting with light meters to ensure areas that had a tree or shadow had adequate lighting. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for September 17, 2008 Page 13 of 25 Committee Member McCormack suggested having adequate lighting to allow the tenants to utilize the patio space in the evening. When there was a space designed that would be used by people for get-togethers and parties it would be important to also provide a power source to that area as an additional amenity. Chair Wheeler suggested adding a condition that would permit the hours that the lights could be turned on until and wondered if they should ask for a photometric study? Committee Member McCormack stated if the Police Department conducted an overlay of their lighting standards he surmised the lighting would not meet the requirement for lighting and would become an issue for the applicant on how they proposed to become compliant with the lighting. He suggested a condition that would address any lighting issues. Mr. Cottle stated the new structure was further apart from the other buildings and they were not concerned about the light spillage affecting neighboring properties. Chair Wheeler asked Committee Member McCormack if he felt comfortable having a light plan reviewed by Staff or would he prefer that the item came back to the DRC for review. Committee Member McCormack stated a review by Staff would be sufficient. Mr. Cottle stated the intent was to give tenants an alternative space to gather in. Committee Member McCormack stated he had major issues with the landscape and how the site was being handled. It would lead him to vote against the project if not changed. There was a proposed removal of the existing trees which he was opposed to. Mr. Long stated the original plan was to keep all trees with the exception of one tree where the parking lot would be. They had tried to save the trees; however, there had been extensive damage to the property due to the shallow roots of the trees. They had been required to provide a water quality management plan and add a bioswale which would be installed where the trees had been planted. Committee Member McCormack stated he had concerns with the bioswale cross-section and the grading; 1% would not give them what they needed especially on turf. A bioswale in its definition would be 2%, and even at 2% it would barely drain and collect water. He had come up with a solution, in removing the curb and gutter the drain line and swale could be added to the area and the trees could be preserved. There would be a drain line, no disturbance of the trees and the drainage issue would be resolved. In utilizing his suggested design they would be able to save the trees. Mr. Long stated they had gone through many renditions of the water quality management requirements and they had resubmitted their proposal at least a half a dozen times. The plan had not been thrown together and they had reworked it with the requirements through their architect. He hesitated to change the design as he felt the engineer would not accept another plan. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for September 17, 2008 Page 14 of 25 Committee Member McCormack stated he had a problem with the engineering solutions and the engineer had probably not given thought to the idea that he had presented to the applicant. Mr. Cottle stated a possibility was to add it as an alternative design. Mr. Long stated they had tried to save the trees at all costs. Committee Member McCormack stated in removing the curb and gutter a trench would be created and it made good design sense. He felt they could have a problem with the 1%bioswale in turf and the only way to get around that would be to have it not in turf. A bioswale would require rock, sand, and more sand which would give it a very pervious cross-section that would hold water, with turf in clay soil the water would not drain and create a mess. He felt with the project being a final determination he would not be able to support the project with its current landscape proposal. Committee Member McCormack pointed out an area on the plans for the walkway and hedges and suggested a small wall be added to the area to contain people and define the exit points. Chair Wheeler suggested a low wall with some of the same finish elements. Mr. Cottle stated he liked the suggestion and the fence would act as a barrier. They could use an attractive wrought iron. Committee Member McCormack asked why asphalt and concrete had been used in an area he pointed out on the plans. Mr. Cottle stated it was to differentiate the settings, asphalt matched all the areas in the back and the parking areas and in upgrading the front area they used concrete. Committee Member McCormack stated there was no cross gutter in the back area and the water would drain against the curb and he had an issue on how the property was being treated in regard to water drainage. All the water appeared to be directed into the 1% bio Swale. Mr. Long stated they had gone around and around on the hydrologist's study and it was designed to handle the capacity and the flow of water on the property. Committee Member McCormack asked if they had used a hydrologist? Mr. Long stated yes and that information was contained in the water quality plans. Committee Member Gladson stated she felt it was not in their purview to question the drainage and they had the grading plan information. Committee Member McCormack showed Committee Member Woollett how the proposed drainage worked. Mr. Long explained how the drainage worked. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for September 17, 2008 Page 15 of 25 Committee Member McCormack stated a bioswale treated plant roots, gravel, and sand. Turf was not considered a bioswale. Mr. Long stated the design was determined to meet the requirements of the water quality management plan. They had worked very closely with Staff to satisfy their concerns and that was how they had come to that design. He was not an expert in the field, however, knew that they had gone back and forth on a number of occasions with the proposed design being approved. Committee Member McCormack stated the fact that turf was being added to a bioswale that had a 3 to 1 slope would create a mess for the person trying to mow the turf. Committee Member Woollett stated they had run into the same dilemma previously where engineering staff was involved in the situation, and when reviewed by the DRC they had serious concerns about the project. In order to not place the applicant in a box they had engineering staff present at the meeting to offer further information. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated there were concerns that Committee Member McCormack had and the Committee could either continue the item or perhaps consider bifurcating it to continue the landscape plan but approve the building design to allow the applicant to move forward through plan check. Those were options that they could consider. If there were design issues related to the water quality solution, the applicant could have their engineer speak with the City's Public Works Department. It was not appropriate to attempt a redesign through the Committee. Chair Wheeler suggested they separate the issue from the building design to allow the applicant to pull permits and somewhere along the line they revisit the landscape portion through a meeting and have the applicant bring their hydrologist or landscape architect to the meeting to be available to answer the concerns and questions of the Committee Members. Committee Member Woollett stated the water quality requirement was being enforced more strongly and they would continue to run into those problems. He was concerned from a design standpoint that if the area turned out to be a muddy mess that would not be something they would want to recommend. Mr. Cottle stated he would be in agreement to split the landscaping and building design, as what the Committee had concerns with was not about the building. Committee Member McCormack stated he had another issue with walkway areas he pointed out on the drawings and suggested adding a walkway through a landscaped area. Senior Landscape Coordinator, Howard Morris, stated Staff had a concern regarding the type of sprinklers proposed and he recommended using 6" pop ups for the turf areas and 12" pop up for the planted areas and adding more detail to the landscape elements. Chair Wheeler made a motion to approve DRC No. 4314-07, Courtyard Apartments, subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report and with the following additional conditions: City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for September 17, 2008 Page 16 of 25 1. The mulleins on the windows be removed to match side elevations. 2. The columns on the front and back shall be the same material and simplified. 3. A railing to match the railing in front be added on east side of patio to keep pedestrians from walking through the roses to the patio. 4. Alighting plan be provided to be approved by Staff and the Police Department. 5. The landscape and civil plan be resubmitted to the Design Review Committee and that the applicant have the appropriate professionals be present at that meeting to resolve any bioswale issues. 6. Addition of a wall or fence to the front walkway area. SECOND: Joe Woollett AYES: Tim McCormack, Adrienne Gladson, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Bill Cathcart MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for September 17, 2008 Page 17 of 25 4) DRC No. 4359-08 -FOUNTAIN CARE FACADE REMODEL A proposal to remodel the entry facade of an existing skilled nursing facility. 1835 West La Veta Avenue Staff Contact: Sonal Thakur, 714-744-7239, sthakur@cityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination Assistant Planner, Sonal Thakur, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Marisol Sanchez, address on file, was present to answer questions. Public Comment None. Chair Wheeler opened the item for discussion by the Committee. Committee Member Woollett stated there were several things to think about, one was the requirement of the DRC that changes to existing buildings be consistent with the existing design and in some cases that was not a good thing. Also, there was an alley being used as an entrance and in the application one side of the alley was being enhanced and not the other. On one side the equipment 'on the roof would be concealed, however, still exposed from the other side. He questioned how much would really be accomplished. He pointed out on the plans what appeared to be the entrance and stated there was not a way to get to the entrance. The buildings were old and parking was very minimal without a drive entrance. He felt the lack of a visual sense of entry was a problem and felt that the addition of the fountain would be a reference point for people trying to find the entrance. He pointed out there was a problem with the transition between the new design elements that gave a very different impression from the side of the building, there was some transition in the corner which helped. Committee Member Woollett stated he had concerns with those issues and understood the building needed updating, however, the changes being proposed would not go far enough to improve the building and would just add to the clutter. He felt if the intent was to identify an entrance than the area should become an entry court of some type and that the paving changes could be more extensive. There was a disruptive concrete element, the drainage swale, that passed directly in front of the entrance. He felt a better solution would be to concrete the entire area and handle the water drainage in a much cleaner way. Chair Wheeler stated he was of two minds on the proposed project, on one side the changes would be barely visible from the street; however, on the other side what was being done was very unfortunate. There was a whole new vocabulary of materials being added and there was no sense of working with the existing forms and materials. A false front was being added, with icing and frosting on it to become a totally different vernacular. The extended barges of the building were being cut and the extended overhang would be cut and in driving up to that area the exposed wall would be visible - it was a very false approach. He felt that the building needed something and suggested the applicant use the forms that existed and not to fight what was there. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for September 17, 2008 Page 18 of 25 It gave the sense that the rest of the building was not appreciated and the remainder of the building would become lower in value. He would rather have a project that used the existing properties of the building and that those be used to improve upon the building. Committee Member Gladson stated she appreciated hearing those comments from her colleagues as it was a new thought for her as she had looked at the proposed project as anon-architect. She had not had that vision. There could be value in having a comprehensive approach to all the buildings to go with a new vocabulary. It was a big scheme and a long term plan and probably not within the budget, she would be more inclined to agree with the scheme presented if the applicant was proposing the change to both buildings. It could be a phased approach. Chair Wheeler stated it was difficult as at some point in time every type of architecture would get to a low point and a building could be looked at as being old fashioned. It was important to enhance what existed and to appreciate what was there. He suggested a design and changes that enhanced the area, keeping within the vocabulary of the existing forms and design. It could be changes that cost less and that would allow the applicant to add a screen of the mechanical equipment to the other side of the courtyard. A design that incorporated the feel of the entire space rather than just one wall would be a better plan. Committee Member Gladson stated she had been to the location some time ago, the site plan was what it was and the building forms were not very attractive. She would be inclined to see a design that incorporated the existing architecture or to have the entire building updated. The new design was not offensive it just needed to go further. She understood the applicant was looking to update the feel. Ms. Sanchez stated she understood the whole issue of wanting to upgrade more of the site. Currently the property owner was on a limited budget and they were only concerned with updating a portion of the building. It could be something that they considered in the future. Committee Member McCormack stated he agreed with the other Committee Members in the fact that they were adding too little. There was a dining room and entry and three parking spaces with a cross gutter, and what was walked on and how that was dealt with had greater impact than the existing architecture. He suggested the addition of a circular point of entry where people could be dropped off and the creation of a courtyard in the three parking spaces that could possibly be relocated. He understood the addition of the fountain, however, in looking at the space from all different points a sense of entry would be important. He appreciated what the applicant was attempting to design, but felt there was a bigger picture and more that could be accomplished. Committee Member McCormack stated with cars approaching and people being pushed in wheelchairs it would be a space that required safety and putting the money in an entry area would be his suggestion. Landscaping on a plan such as this was difficult, in that without opportunities to add planting there was not a way to soften what existed. Committee Member Woollett felt it would be helpful to review the plans and provide suggestions to the applicant. He noted that there were parking spaces and a large bin that eliminated a parking space, and the trash containers could possibly be moved. He felt there could be a better solution to the layout of the space and to address the entire area. He was not sure if the three parking spaces at the proposed entry area were utilized. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for September 17, 2008 Page 19 of 25 Committee Member McCormack stated if someone were to park in those spaces and a person was sitting in that area, he pointed out the spot on the plan he was referring to, they could get very close to that person. Mixing cars in such a conned area, and especially handicapped spaces was not a good use of space. Committee Member Woollett stated one area of the building was pitched and there was the view looking into that space, if the sloping walls were left those would need to be addressed and the trellis area could be left there to create some intimacy. The money saved in re-working that design could be used to do what needed to be completed inside the space. Committee Member McCormack stated it was important to treat the space and not just the facade and instead of spending the money on the false front and to create a space and an actual entry area. Committee Member Woollett suggested moving the trash dumpsters and pointed out the area on the plans. Chair Wheeler stated he was very uncomfortable asking the applicant to expand on an area of the project that they had not considered and he would not want changes to the space that would affect Fire Department access problems. There were changes that could help that space; however, there were many factors that needed to be considered. Committee Member Woollett asked the applicant if there were issues, other than cost issues, such as fire access issues? Ms. Sanchez stated they wanted an entry that was visually identified. Committee Member Woollett, referring to the plans, stated the whole area was the entry and not just the front of the building. Chair Wheeler stated the applicant might not be able to accomplish all the changes that they were suggesting as it could trigger more problems. It was fair to ask the applicant to investigate and to try to take a more complete approach of the area, understanding there would be things that could not be done. He suggested the use of the forms and materials that were there now, rather than introducing a whole new collection of forms and materials; and to think of the area there and focus on a welcoming space with textures and landscape that would work with the design. Committee Member McCormack stated he had understood that the fountain was behind the wall and asked if it was at ground level? Fountains could range in price and if simplified could offer cost savings. Fountains were hugely subjective to how they were used, and they were pieces of art. If water being added was the intent that use could be simplified. Chair Wheeler had a good point in stating that there could be fire access issues and he would like to find out if there was required parking in that space. Chair Wheeler stated if the spaces were required parking those spaces could be updated with textured concrete and they would not necessarily have to be parked on. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for September 17, 2008 Page 20 of 25 Committee Member McCormack stated the direction of the spaces could be changed with a landscape element added. There were many design changes that could be made to enhance the space. Budget was an issue, fire access and handicapped parking and trash were things that needed to be considered. The applicant presented a change that they intended to be good and he suggested that they needed to look at the entire space. Committee Member Woollett stated the parking spaces in the back could be moved and additional spaces added to allow the other parking to be used in some type of a courtyard manner. Committee Member McCormack stated the role of the DRC was to look at design elements and suggested not making too many architectural changes and to look at the entire space and find solutions to enhance the space. Ms. Thakur asked if the Committee would be recommending continuance of the item to a future date to allow the applicant to speak to the property owner in order to ascertain if they wanted to pursue other changes. Ms. Sanchez stated the property owner had wanted to add the fountain with landscaping elements. Committee Member McCormack stated on the fountain with the current design, it would need to be raised in order to see the water. Ms. Sanchez stated the columns that were in front of the windows would be designed with a water element that would spill into the fountain and would be visible from inside of the building. The chapel was being looked at for a change of use to become a salon and spa. It was a change that had already been approved. Committee Member McCormack stated there were many elements involved with the addition of a fountain. Committee Member Gladson stated a fountain was a wonderful amenity and the tie-in with a fountain was important to the name of the facility. Ms. Sanchez stated they had originally thought of placing the fountain between the parking aisle, however, there was the turn around and space requirements that had not allowed them to place it there. Committee Member Woollett stated all the Committee Members had visited the site and saw what people who were there everyday would not see. The little things that they would be improving would not be enough and make the rest of the building look worse. If focusing on just one area everything else would look worse. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for September 17, 2008 Page 21 of 25 Committee Member Gladson made a motion to continue DRC No. 4359-08, Fountain Care Facade Remodel, to allow applicant to present alternate designs. SECOND: Tim McCormack AYES: Tim McCormack, Adrienne Gladson, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Bill Cathcart MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for September 17, 2008 Page 22 of 25 5) DRC No. 4376-08 and CUP No. 2723-08 - TUTTO FRESCO A proposal to completely fence in an existing outdoor patio area and construct a new entry trellis for a new restaurant (in an existing building). 1333 North Glassell Street Staff Contact: Sonal Thakur, 714-744-7239, sthakur@cityoforange.org DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission Assistant Planner, Sonal Thakur, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Bob Atkins, address on file, stated they had brought different gate and fence material designs which he presented to the Committee. Applicant, Steve White, address on file, stated the approach was to get a Tuscany feel and that was the reason for the trellis and gate. The wood gate would give that feeling. They had a restaurant in Rancho Santa Margarita with a trellis entrance and that was what they were attempting to emulate. Ms. Thakur stated if the Committee felt those gates would be appropriate, Staff would recommend similar treatment of the shutters to match the gate. Committee Member McCormack asked if both sides of the gate would have the same treatment. Mr. White stated that was correct. Public Comment None. Chair Wheeler opened the item to the Committee for discussion. Chair Wheeler stated that he had the pleasure of having lunch at the Rancho Santa Margarita location. There was a canopy out front at that location that he had not cared for and wanted to gain more information on the trellis design and material. Mr. Atkins stated looking at sheet No. 3 there was an aerial view and sheet No. 4 contained the front and side views of the trellis. It would add more warmth to the entrance of the building with a Tuscany feel. Chair Wheeler stated the north elevation had the trellis drawn wrong and pointed out the correction to the applicants on the plan. He asked if they used a stain approach to the gate would the same treatment be used for the trellis? Mr. Atkins stated they could use the same treatment and use it on the shutters as well. On the trellis, a stain and sealer would be used. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for September 17, 2008 Page 23 of 25 Chair Wheeler stated an important element for the trellis would be the hardware; he presented a sketch of hardware that he suggested. Mr. Atkins reviewed the design and installation of the trellis and referenced where additional hardware could be added. Chair Wheeler stated heavy hardware with bolts and not the nail on product could be used. Mr. Atkins stated they had seen the type of hardware that Chair Wheeler was suggesting and they would be agreeable to using that type of hardware. Committee Member McCormack asked if they had considered how they treated the base of the trellis and footing in the ground. Mr. Atkins stated he had reviewed the design with the general contractor and the treatment for the base could be on pedestals. Committee Member McCormack stated they could mimic the columns that were at the entry and place the posts on a stone seat and build the trellis from there. He had looked at the extension of the circular area and suggested extending the trellis area to bridge the gap in that area. He reviewed the photo and suggested instead of continuing the concrete against the wall to allow a landscape element to go in there. Mr. Atkins stated they would be breaking up the' concrete in that area to add footings and it could be an opportunity for additional plantings. Committee Member McCormack asked if the wood fence could be block and stucco instead? Mr. Atkins stated the reason for using wood was due to the dense landscaping and the wood would pick up the other elements of the building and it was a cost savings; he pointed out the specific area and elements he spoke about. The gate would be visible; however, the fencing would be screened with landscape. Committee Member McCormack suggested picking up some of the black hardware on the gate area. He asked if the panic hardware was connected to an alarm and were there City requirements for that? Mr. Atkins stated that had not come up. Ms. Thakur stated there was no requirement for an alarm; the panic hardware was used for fire and emergency access. There would be a condition attached to the ABC license that would have specific requirements for the patio area. Committee Member McCormack stated the landscape plan would need to be reviewed with Staff. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for September 17, 2008 Page 24 of 25 Mr. Atkins stated they were planning on planting additional trees along the side of the building that faced Pep Boys. Committee Member McCormack stated that was a south exposure and the trees would provide shade in the summer and sun in the winter, and the tree theme could be carried around. He asked if there would be lighting in the trellis area. Mr. Atkins stated there would be goose neck lamps on the building and there would be fluorescent lighting in the trellis area. The patio area received lighting from the adjacent areas. The spaces around them were basically industrial. Chair Wheeler asked if Committee Member McCormack would suggest Sycamore trees for the area? Committee Member McCormack stated yes, Sycamore would be the tree of choice and the Mexican Sycamore would be a good choice. Those trees existed in the median on City Drive next to TGIF. Senior Landscaping Coordinator, Howard Morris, stated they would get leave droppings from the trees and stated they may get too large for the area. Committee Member McCormack stated they would not get too big and could be managed through pruning. Mr. Morris stated the Mexican Sycamore would keep its foliage longer than other Sycamore trees. It was a great Sycamore tree. Chair Wheeler made a motion to recommend approval to the Planning Commission of DRC No. 4376-08 and CUP 2723-08, Tutto Fresco, subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report and with the following additional conditions: 1. Trellis hardware to be the bolt-on type. 2. Explore the extension of the trellis to make contact with the semi-circular area at the front entry (approximately another 8'). 3. Trellis, gate, and shutters to have a stained treatment. 4. Additional landscape to be added to the north portion of the semi-circular patio area. 5. Additional tree plantings to be added on the east side of the property. Two to three, 36" Mexican Sycamore trees were recommended. SECOND: Adrienne Gladson AYES: Tim McCormack, Adrienne Gladson, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Bill Cathcart MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for September 17, 2008 Page 25 of 25 ADJOURNMENT: Committee Member Gladson made a motion to adjourn to the next regular scheduled meeting on Wednesday, October 1, 2008. The meeting adjourned at 8:02 p.m. SECOND: Tim McCormack AYES: Tim McCormack, Adrienne Gladson, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES:None ABSTAIN:None ABSENT:Bill Cathcart MOTION CARRIED.