2012-07-18 DRC Final Minutes CITY OF ORANGE
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
MINUTES - FINAL
July 18, 2012
Committee Members Present: Carol Fox
Robert Imboden
Craig Wheeler
Joe Woollett
Tim McCormack
Committee Members Absent: None
Staff in Attendance: Anna Pehoushek, Principal Planner
Doris Nguyen, Associate Planner
Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner
Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary
Administrative Session — 5:00 P.M.
Chair Woollett opened the Administrative Session at 5:07 p.m. with a review of the Agenda.
Principal Planner, Anna Pehoushek, stated for item No. 4, The Tilted Kilt, one of the
representatives for the proposed project had a plane to catch and the applicant was asking for the
Chair's consideration to have the item moved up in the Agenda.
Chair Woollett stated in his opinion the item would move quickly and he would agree to move
the item up in the Agenda.
Ms. Pehoushek stated there had been last minute correspondence received for the America's Tire
item. She passed out copies to the Committee Members.
The Committee Members reviewed the meeting minutes from the Design Review Committee
meeting of July 5, 2012; changes and corrections were noted.
Committee Member Fox made a motion to adjourn the Administrative Session.
SECOND: Craig Wheeler
AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED.
Administrative Session adjourned at 5:24 p.m.
Regular Session - 5:30 P.M.
ROLL CALL:
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for July 18, 2012
Page 2 of 26
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 were no speakers.
CONSENT ITEMS:
(1) APPROVAL OF MINUTES: July 5, 2012
Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve the minutes from the Design Review
Committee meeting of July 5, 2012, with corrections and changes noted during the
Administrative Session.
SECOND: Carol Fox
AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Tim McCormack
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for July 18, 2012
Page 3 of 26
AGENDA ITEMS:
Continued Items
(2) DRC No. 4586 -11 — LARSON RESIDENCE
• A proposal to construct a new 5,485 sq. ft. single family residence plus a 1,779 sq. ft.
attached garage on a vacant lot.
• 1450 Nicky Way
• Staff Contact: Doris Nguyen, 714 - 744 -7223, do uyen(a
• Previous DRC Reviews: March 21, 2012 & May 16, 2012
• DRC Action: Final Determination
Associate Planner, Doris Nguyen, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report.
Applicant, Brian Brennan, address on file, stated he was available for questions.
Public Comment
None.
Chair Woollett opened the item to the Committee for discussion.
Chair Woollett stated the new site plan drawings had grading contours on them. There were
some fairly steep slopes, about 45 degrees on the north/west side. Also on the roof plan with
roof slopes of 6 and 12, there would be a need for different angle on the valleys.
Committee Member Wheeler stated if they were all the same pitch, the hip would be 45 degrees.
The roof plan was much better, but he saw one area that might still be a problem. He had noticed
a change to the area where previously the two plate heights had been. When the drafts person
had to go back and adjust for that, those had been picked up except for one area (which he
pointed out and explained to the applicant). It was noted as a correction needed to Sheet A2.1
between the two -car garage and house.
Committee Members Fox and Wheeler reviewed the roof plan.
Committee Member Fox stated the error would get picked up in the process and it would not
change what the elevation looked like.
Committee Member Wheeler stated whenever there were two valleys, and all the pitches were
the same, in plan view those would always cause a right angle.
Chair Woollett stated the other major issue had to do with the walls.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for July 18, 2012
Page 4 of 26
Committee Member Fox asked if the applicant could walk them through what had changed. She
noticed the pavilion had moved and she asked if the wall moved forward?
Mr. Brennan stated the pavilion had moved and the wall had been moved forward. He reviewed
the plans with the Committee Members.
Committee Member Fox stated the fencing was being added up slope, which would keep
neighbors from wandering onto the property.
Mr. Brennan stated the hill had been deemed a non - climbable slope by the City for the neighbors
at the top, with the pool. He had taken the DRC's suggestions from the previous review and had
added the tubular steel. The Planning Division would not have the two walls added together for
a combination height and that was how he was able to add the other fence. The additional fence
was not required by the Building Division, but it was something he took into consideration and
he thanked the Committee Members for bringing it to his attention.
Committee Member Wheeler stated he lived up in Silverado Canyon and many times the fences
caught rocks and such on the steep slopes. There were benefits.
Mr. Brennan stated the home that was at the top of the slope had a deck that was built on
caissons; there were 4x posts with a retaining wall in order to have the pool on that site.
Chair Woollett stated it appeared the applicant had resolved some important issues.
Committee Member Wheeler stated he was pleased to see that the tubular steel fencing was
being used at the front of the property.
Committee Member McCormack stated there was a rock slide with 6" steps and it was kind of a
built -up area with rock formations to a slide into the pool.
Committee Member Fox stated it was going up 5' so it was still 5' below the top of the wall, so it
isn't stairs to necessarily get to the top area, it's only going half -way up.
Chair Woollett stated that was fine.
Mr. Brennan stated he had removed the Joshua tree.
Committee Member McCormack asked if there was a slant to connect to the CMU wall?
Mr. Brennan showed him a cross section that explained how the area would work. Where the
grade on the other side of the wall dropped to a point and they picked up what the wrought iron
fence was not doing.
Committee Member McCormack stated the Date palm was listed at 15- gallon, and he was not
certain those were available. Typically they were bought from a grove. It was fine to use that
plant, but a 15- gallon size would look very small. Generally Palm trees were noted in a brown
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for July 18, 2012
Page 5 of 26
trunk height and not by the gallon. Date palm needles were unforgiving and he suggested getting
the Date palms up over head.
Ms. Nguyen stated the Community Services Department requirement was when planting Palm
trees that they be at a minimum of 12', brown trunk height.
Mr. Brennan stated he wanted something taller.
Committee Member McCormack stated everything was much better. He suggested the use of
vine on the tall wall; he had not found any notations for mitigation of that wall. The wall was in
the foreground and right next to the space, he suggested the use of Boston ivy.
Mr. Brennan stated they were still looking at that as the wall would be either a "pour and place"
wall or maybe some masonry on top of it. Depending on the finish, and if they used masonry,
they would go with a split face. On the "pour and place" wall they might use some Boston ivy or
some wall carvings.
Committee Member McCormack stated there was Prunus caroliniana noted next to the wall and
he suggested it be called out as a column form of Caroliniana. That way it could grow up in lieu
of a vine.
Committee Member McCormack made a motion to approve DRC No. 4586 -11, Larson
Residence, subject to the conditions and findings contained in the Staff Report and with the
following additional conditions:
• The Phoenix dactylifera to be at a minimum 12' brown trunk height.
• Specify the column form for the Prunus caroliniana.
SECOND: Carol Fox
AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for July 18, 2012
Page 6 of 26
(3) DRC No. 4615 -12 - AMERICA'S TIRE
• A proposal to modify the existing north elevation of an 8,382 sq. ft. building by adding
five bay doors where glazing currently exists, adding on- building signage to the north and
east elevations, eliminating 11 parking spaces for bay door access, and installing four tree
wells and a landscape finger.
• 1542 E. Chapman Avenue
• Staff Contact: Chad Ortlieb, 714- 744 -7237, cortliebncityoforange.org
• Previous DRC Review: June 6, 2012
• DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission
Senior Planner, Chad Ortlieb, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report.
Applicants, Al Hatfield and Chris Pedersen, addresses on file, stated they were available for
questions.
Public Comment
Lisa Kim, address on file, stated she was the Economic Development Manager for the City of
Orange's Economic Development Department. She wanted to share some information on the
efforts that were being made to work with the current property owners at the subject site. Her
department was involved in the original redevelopment at the site with the Walgreen's store and
in addition 10 years ago they worked with the property owner in redevelopment of the site for
the Togos and Baskin Robbins. Over the last three years the City had worked very closely with
Walgreen's in hopes to lease the vacant store front space. They had been unsuccessful and the
feedback that had been received was that the site was set back and it had been a challenge to find
an occupant for that space. The Economic Development Team was supportive of the America's
Tire store moving into the location as proposed and she was available for any questions
regarding the redevelopment efforts by the City of Orange.
Note: An email received by Margit Allen, address on file, was entered into the record with a
copy of the email distributed to the applicant and Committee Members.
Chair Woollett opened the item to the Committee for discussion.
Chair Woollett stated his recollection was that he asked whether the facility would be using any
pneumatic equipment?
Mr. Hatfield stated there would be the use of pneumatic air guns. The sound study was included
in their submittal. They placed microphones in front of the building and the decibels from
ambient noise were lower than what the pneumatic equipment registered at. From the last
meeting they had explored placing doors at the back of the building, and if they had gone with
that design they would not be good neighbors. The noise would not be covered by the ambient
noise; in fact, it might be worse and ricochet off the wall and go over the wall. The design had
been cut a number of ways, placing bays at the side and it still required that they needed two
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for July 18, 2012
Page 7 of 26
doors at the front. They were not way off and any doors that would not be used would be closed.
Most of the time during normal business hours two doors would be open and during peek sales
there would be three to four doors open. The last door would remain closed, as that would be the
receiving door and only used for loading and unloading. Placing a door at the back could not be
defended and their operation would be quieter than the ambient noise that was in the area. With
the latest technology for pneumatic equipment there were mufflers on them to decrease the noise
and they were very quiet. A portion of the submittal was the sound study.
Chair Woollett confirmed with Staff that based on his own interpretation, it sounded like the City
Attorney's office felt there was a legal way to limit the use to a tire store which would restrict the
site from later becoming a mechanic shop. The decision would be made by the Planning
Commission upon the DRC's recommendation.
Mr. Ortlieb stated that was correct.
Mr. Hatfield stated he understood it could pertain strictly to America's Tire and no other
company could come in.
Committee Member Fox stated that was going to be her question as there was nothing that tied
the agreement to America's Tire; it actually appeared that it was an agreement that would run
with the land.
Mr. Hatfield stated America's Tire would be willing to limit it to their company if they were
allowed to.
Committee Member Fox stated she wondered if that was not allowed, as that was the direction
that they had discussed last time. She asked Staff for clarification.
Mr. Ortlieb stated Staff had gone with what the applicant had proposed and had brought that
forth to the City Attorney. There might be language that could be added to limit the agreement
to just America's Tire and that could be a recommendation to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Hatfield stated they would have no problem with that.
Committee Member Fox stated if another tire store came in, that store would need to request a
new CUP.
Chair Woollett stated it would probably be granted, unless there had been a bad experience with
the previous vendor.
Chair Woollett stated the sound was as much of an issue with the use before them as it would be
with any auto use. The pneumatic tools were the primary sound issue.
Committee Member Fox stated there were other aesthetic issues that had to do with mechanics,
oil changes, the smells and such.
Chair Woollett stated those were things that tended to impact the parking lot.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for July 18, 2012
Page 8 of 26
Mr. Pedersen stated the fact that there were so many tires in their inventory that would also help
in absorbing a considerable amount of noise.
Committee Member Wheeler stated then they would be blocked by the new wall and he
wondered if that interior wall was doing more harm than good.
Mr. Hatfield stated it was a protection for the rear of the building. City Staff had visited their
store and the wall would be plywood over the existing racks that would be placed at the store and
those would be painted. There were still areas for walking.
Committee Member Wheeler stated a new plane, of more than 50% would be added, a solid wall
that might be detrimental to not allowing sound to be absorbed into the tires.
Mr. Pedersen stated the material had not been specifically defined. Sound - deadening board
could be specified, there was that product available. The sound study was completed without the
tires and there was no additional sound level.
Chair Woollett stated he would speak to the sound issue based on the types of facilities he
designed as an architect, and sound was a big issue. Various materials attenuate sounds
differently at different frequencies. Masonry actually was an absorber of sound; concreted block
was an absorber of sound of certain frequencies but not of others. Rubber was a sound absorber
of some sounds but not of others. Plywood would reflect certain frequencies but not others.
Without more specific data the sound issue could not be determined. Pneumatic guns were
within a certain frequency and fairly high pitched. If something was done to the wall it would be
the result of an acoustic engineer's recommendation and could not be just a guess.
Committee Member Fox stated there was the concern of how it looked and the sound.
Chair Woollett stated the DRC should deal with the aesthetics, as the sound issue would be dealt
with.
Committee Member Fox stated the question was if standing outside, would the wall be visible
from all the way back. She had visited Pep Boys on Katella and they had a trellis that went
across the bays with a vine pocket, and they had spoke about trees and she wondered if a trellis
would work for the proposal before them.
Committee Member Wheeler stated he thought that would be a nice idea and it would help to
hide the doors and put them in the shade and with some planting that would absorb the sound.
Committee Member McCormack stated that landscape treatment he equated to attempting to
screen transformers was silly and, with all due respect to the project he was focusing on Urban
Design and considerations and policies. The existing site had store fronts and if it had been
designed for a tire store it would not appear as it had today and he was having a hard time
design -wise; the use was so dominant. It had not felt right to him; in an industrial court of
Orange it would work. He had a problem with landscaping being used to screen some unsightly
issue, it was "putting lipstick on a pig" and it would not work. As much as they wanted to rely
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for July 18, 2012
Page 9 of 26
on landscape, the landscape would not have a chance to survive in the zone proposed with such a
small root zone. The planter areas needed much more root space and the parking lot was
compacted to 95 %, it was concrete. He thought they were just delusional to think that landscape
could save the project.
Committee Member Imboden stated he appreciated the composite rendering that had been done,
but he agreed first with the comment that the mural approach would not be visible as it was set-
up in the demonstration. The trees would grow so far over the doors that he would not go buy
tires at that location as he would not want his car scratched by the trees. It was not a solution; it
was an attempt, but not a solution.
Committee Member Fox stated the trees would not grow that large because there was no root
space for them.
Mr. Pedersen stated he was walking down a big city street and there were very large trees, with a
small circle in the sidewalk, the roots expanded down and he had remembered what Committee
Member McCormack had stated. Those trees appeared to be growing nicely in that small space
with grates for walking by. Trees may or may not work. The reason they placed the fagade in
front of the racks was because of the comments made about the industrial use and they wanted to
screen that with the same lighter colors of the building.
Committee Member Imboden stated his point was that it would not be visible in the manner that
it was presented before them in the rendering that had been submitted. To go back to the large
trees, the trees might grow, but how would the cars be driven into the bays without being
scratched? His concern was if the mitigation proposed would be effective or that it would
actually come to fruition.
Committee Member McCormack stated the DRC had previously asked for the applicant to find a
way to maintain the store front and have the cars enter at the side. The way the building was
designed was to have an articulated store front appearance. With the vehicular movement it
fragmented part of the site and the pedestrians would be gone from that area; and it seemed odd
design -wise. He would have liked to have seen a design with side entries and have the sound
travel a different direction. The store front would be maintained and work with the current
architecture.
Mr. Hatfield stated the problem with that design was that all the electrical equipment for the
building would need to be moved at a cost of $20,000 to $30,000. He almost thought that the
shielding of the racks would be a compliment; it was meant to blend into the store front. In
driving by or just walking by and looking across the 113' of parking space, they only took cars
off of the ground a few feet, and it would have the appearance of parked cars and the space
would not be an industrial, dirty building. The shielding for the bays was meant to shield the tire
storage and blend in. He totally understood the DRC's concerns, they lived in the City. If they
could use the trellis idea to add greenery to the building, it was already a beautiful building and
in driving by the cars being serviced would just appear as cars sitting in a parking lot, it would be
no different than that.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for July 18, 2012
Page 10 of 26
Committee Member McCormack stated the trellis would be adding just more things to the
building and he was having a hard time having a perpendicular auto penetration along that space.
What if you were not a savvy walker and walked in front of all of that, as a pedestrian where
would you go? The building's statement was store front, not industrial repair or fabrication; he
was not stating there would be a lot of foot traffic, but it would only take one person.
Mr. Hatfield stated the pedestrian traffic would be their customers who would be tied up for 30
to 40 minutes and would go to Walgreen's or go get an ice cream cone or go get lunch; the
neighbors loved them. They were closed on Sunday and that would allow extra parking for the
restaurants. They explored the three bays at the end of the building but it would not free up all
the doors in the front. They would still need two doors and there would not be much difference
with three doors or five, as one door would be closed all the time.
Chair Woollett stated the more he thought about the proposed project, the more he thought the
DRC was missing some important points. He had been watching the shopping center a long time
and he used to shop at the Builders Emporium there. When Walgreen's came in they expressed
concern about whether it was a good location for Walgreen's; he had observed other businesses
at that site and one of the issues had been access to the site. The access had been resolved to
some extent with an entry off of Tustin. One of the problems with the center was visibility and
someone could have driven by Builders Emporium and not even realized it was there, even then
before landscaping was required. He wondered if the DRC was missing an important point and a
big issue was being made about the openings that were in fact fairly far back from the street and
in a location for many years had poor visibility. The openings were not right on the street, they
were way back and he wondered if they were applying invalid criticism to the proposed project
based on the nature of the site. Depending on how far away the opening was, a large opening
was not different from a large piece of glass, the glass would reflect, but again it was a long way
back. He had listened to what Ms. Kim had stated about redevelopment and businesses and the
DRC represented the citizens of Orange. It was important to have the center be viable. He
wondered if the DRC was imposing criticism on the proposal before them that was not
appropriate to the specific site.
Committee Member Fox stated she agreed with what Ms. Kim had outlined, that in working with
other potential business that those businesses had not found the site had good visibility. So for
the DRC to state they needed to hold out for retail businesses that were not automotive was not
productive. How long had the buildings been vacant? She agreed that the previous use, Builders
Emporium, was pretty industrial and a pretty ugly site; when the current project came in the
buildings appeared so much nicer. If the site could not attract the type of tenant they all wanted
to have there, what should they do, allow the buildings to remain vacant and hold out?
Chair Woollett stated the DRC was charged with the aesthetics.
Committee Member Wheeler stated the sound issue was probably not within the DRC's purview.
Chair Woollett stated he had brought up the sound, but it was likely that would be dealt with. He
saw the DRC resisting the idea of an auto place, but there were different kinds of auto facilities,
service facilities and the applicant was being careful to make a distinction and had even
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for July 18, 2012
Page I I of 26
suggested language that would limit the use to a very specific type of auto use. The use
proposed was much less of a negative impact than other uses.
Committee Member Wheeler asked if they should explore the use of a trellis a bit more? He felt
the Committee Members agreed that the proposed trees on the site would not work very well and
maybe a trellis with vines would be a better approach.
Committee Member Fox stated if the trees had not worked they would not have anything out
there and she asked Committee Member McCormack if he agreed that a trellis would be better
than nothing?
Committee Member Imboden stated before there was a response to that he had something to add.
Previously when he had sat on the Planning Commission when the Walgreen's project came
through there had been an extreme reduction in landscaping at the front of the project with the
widening of the street. As it was a redevelopment project he had looked at it differently. The
site had been an industrial use in a former life, but he had not felt that economic redevelopment
had gone to all the trouble to then have it return to that type of use, and that was where his
hesitation was. He was a little more than hesitant with the proposed new aesthetic to the front of
the building.
Committee Member Fox stated currently there was no existing planters in that zone, it was
paving.
Committee Member Imboden stated he was referring to the front of the property.
Committee Member Fox stated with what was being proposed they were not taking away more
planting.
Committee Member Imboden stated his hesitation was not because it was a tire store; if the bays
were at the back of the building he would have no problem with the project. For him the
proposal that was before him had not successfully screened the repair bays, it had not been
successfully done and that was where his hesitation came from. Possibly Committee Member
McCormack had something to add about trellises that made them feel one way or the other and
that there may be ideas out there that would create the possibility and he was not asking
Committee Member McCormack to solve the problem. He would be interested in hearing if
there was a reason a trellis application to the front would not work.
Chair Woollett stated "to ameliorate the situation."
Applicant, Noel Anasco, address on file, stated his group was the architect for the project. At the
last meeting there had been discussion about screening the bays with the use of trees in the
parking lot and it had not worked that well, but his idea was to screen the bays through the
existing planter with the use of vines. What would occur was that vertical trellises could be
placed with vines growing sparingly between the parking stalls and that would block the view of
the bays from the street.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for July 18, 2012
Page 12 of 26
Mr. Ortlieb stated it was his understanding that the current landscape had been planted for water
retention and water quality purposes and if a change was something the DRC wanted to entertain
they would need to discuss the ramifications of the changes to those areas.
Committee Member Imboden asked Mr. Ortlieb if he felt that the Police Department could
support the intentional screening of the front of a fagade of a building and there was also a fire
hydrant in that area as well?
Mr. Ortlieb stated it begged some questions at the very least.
Committee Member Fox stated she believed they had discussed that type of screening at the
previous project review and that Walgreen's was not in favor of any screening as they wanted the
visibility from the street.
Mr. Hatfield stated he was not certain they had discussed that with Walgreen's. They had not
explored further screening based on the comments that were brought up during the previous
meeting.
Committee Member Fox stated those were her comments as she had been involved when the
initial project for Walgreen's had come forward, the site had been designed to be open.
Mr. Hatfield stated they were all brainstorming and he recalled the comments made about the
visibility.
Chair Woollett stated what he was hearing was that there was an objection to the open doors
because they were not compatible with the rest of the center. Aesthetically, regardless of the use,
ie; the space could be for a flower shop with large openings, but it would be objectionable.
Committee Member Fox stated no, for her personally it was the large openings with an
automotive use and the aesthetics of that type of use would be different than the aesthetics of a
flower shop.
Chair Woollett stated he felt the DRC was having a problem with perception and he was
concerned that the issue of perception may not be their issue and that should be an issue for the
Planning Commission and the DRC was charged with the aesthetics of the proposal.
Committee Member Fox stated for her it was the aesthetics of having a door open and
automotive stuff, pneumatic hoses and such. It was an industrial looking interior more so than a
flower shop.
Chair Woollett stated but they had not known what the inside would look like.
Committee Member Fox stated when she looked at other tire stores she saw what it might look
like.
Committee Member Imboden stated that might be part of the problem that they were not certain
what it would look like.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for July 18, 2012
Page 13 of 26
Committee Member Fox stated if they had photos of some of the other America's Tire store
installations and they could review what the inside of the bays looked like; and if it had not
looked like Pep Boys.
Chair Woollett stated if it was a flower area with vessels with flowers in them, very deep inside
the store and it could be a distribution point for flowers with a lot of flowers; there would be
large openings for trucks to back up and bring the flowers in and haul the flowers away and that
sort of thing and it might very well appear the same as the proposal before them. The flowers
might not be visible at all, but because it would be a flower use the DRC Members might be
open to it.
Committee Member Fox stated if it was a warehouse use it would be just as much of a discussion
about the aesthetics.
Committee Member Imboden stated he agreed with Committee Member Fox.
Committee Member Fox stated she was not opposed to America's Tire locating there and
installing tires, especially after hearing the information from the Economic Development
Department about their attempts to find tenants for that space. The City had not needed to
encourage vacancies of buildings based on the DRC's aesthetic judgment. It was a matter of the
orientation of the use.
Committee Member McCormack stated he had not agreed that it was a valid point. There was
one factor that they were not aware of and that was what was the rent being asked at that
location. If the rent was low enough there would be tenants that could easily go into that space
that had not needed visibility, businesses such as a lawyer's office. There were people willing to
rent in Orange that had not needed street access visibility.
Committee Member Imboden stated there were many highly visible sites that had sat empty for
the last two years and that was not within the DRC's purview.
Chair Woollett stated the reason he had brought up the economics was simply to illustrate that in
his judgment it was because of the way the building was set so far back from the street and the
fact that it was set so far back should be a consideration of how picky they were getting about
what it could look like.
Committee Member McCormack stated if the applicant could find a way to have automobiles
enter from the side and maintain the front facade he would not be opposed to a tire store. He felt
they were going far beyond design when they attempted so hard to screen a transformer. It
would be apparent to every lay person that some attempt was being made to hide something.
The proposed design was not able to be mitigated.
Chair Woollett stated what he was hearing was that if the openings were glass, instead of
openings, that the proposal could be approved.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for July 18, 2012
Page 14 of 26
Committee Member McCormack stated exactly, as he could not discriminate against the use,
although he could not agree with it. Aside from just mowing the building down and making it
appear more like a tire store, it seemed odd that the City had gone through the whole process of
building the building that currently existed only to change it again. His only standpoint, and with
all due respect to the applicants, the site had been built to be one thing and it was being forced to
be another and the design skills of the DRC were being hampered in attempting to mitigate that
issue. It was tough. With the idea of a flower shop, they smelled better and were not loud. He
had a tough time with the design intent not mitigating the use.
Committee Member Imboden stated Mr. Ortlieb had done a nice job of including the Urban
Design Policies of the City of Orange in the packet and for him it was difficult to argue that the
proposal met the policies and goals any better than what currently existed.
Mr. Anasco stated even with bays at the side the use would still require two bays at the front of
the building.
Committee Member Wheeler stated sometimes those would be closed and it would be a big
improvement on what had been proposed.
Committee Member Imboden stated "and maybe with a trellis over those openings." He felt a
strong enough effort had not been made to meet the objectives.
Committee Member McCormack stated he agreed and felt the building itself was not approving
of the project because it had not wanted the access because of the electrical situation.
Mr. Hatfield stated if that was what they needed to do to make it work they would do that to
make it work. He had not remembered, but two of the City's Staff Members had visited the
Huntington Beach store and he presented a photo of what that location looked like. There had
been a comment made that the store had not looked like a tire store, and that was the example
from Huntington Beach. They had chosen that building because they loved the way it appeared
and it fit their company, and he would go back to the boutique concept. America's Tire just sold
tires and wheels and that was all they did. They attempted screening and what was before the
DRC was what they had come up with. They had photos of what their bays looked like and there
were not lines running all over and they were a clean tire store. They would place all five bays at
the end if they could, but there was not enough space on the side.
Committee Member Wheeler stated he was sensing that there was much opposition to having all
the bays doors at the front and at the previous meeting they had left with the understanding that
the applicant would study other ways to configure the building so that there would not be so
many openings at the front and his feeling was that he still wanted to see that. He felt the
applicant had not done what the DRC had asked of them at the last meeting.
Mr. Hatfield stated they had spoken about the rear and that would not work with the noise issue.
With the bays at the front it worked.
Chair Woollett stated he was having trouble with that statement and he knew a great deal about
acoustics and the sound would be reflected on the wall and not go through it. He suspected that
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for July 18, 2012
Page 15 of 26
the major issue for the applicant was that if the doors were on the back side of the building the
site would not work as well; the building would be considerably less functional.
Mr. Pedersen stated the comment made was that the screening of the tire racks would not work,
but to him it had worked.
Committee Member Fox stated it would appear very dark.
Mr. Pedersen stated they could paint the screen to match the exterior colors.
Committee Member Fox stated it was a clever idea, but a band -aid solution to what the DRC was
hoping to review and those were pretty fundamental changes to the front of the building. The
request was made very clear. She appreciated that they had researched and found the easiest
thing to change was the CUP, but the more difficult challenge had not been well addressed.
Committee Member Wheeler stated he felt the interior wall would not do much. It would be
difficult to see and it was something to sooth but it would not help. It was his feeling that he
would ask the applicant to return with a design that had fewer doors in the front and with any
doors in the front that a trellis application be studied.
Mr. Hatfield stated if they were able to obtain the verbiage for the CUP for their company only
and if the bays were placed on the east side would the DRC support having two doors at the
front?
Committee Member Wheeler stated he would support a design with those changes.
Mr. Hatfield asked if they could get approval for that?
Committee Member Wheeler stated he would need to review the proposal. His feeling would be
to study ways to conceal the two doors a bit more.
Mr. Hatfield stated an opening was an opening and as the DRC had clearly stated, those were
difficult to shield and he was not certain that shielding could be done as the openings would not
go away.
Committee Member Wheeler stated he was asking the applicant to study different concepts as the
trees had not worked at all. He suggested the use of a trellis with vines. He was not certain if the
applicant was familiar with Garden Walk with vines in big pots and if the soil would not support
that to try other ideas and do something instead of pretending the tires were not there.
Mr. Hatfield stated if all of the bays were on the east side and in the back would that idea be
approved?
Committee Member Fox stated it was hard to state they would approve something without the
City reviewing it.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for July 18, 2012
Page 16 of 26
Committee Member Imboden stated he was not comfortable with stating the DRC could approve
a proposal they had not reviewed.
Committee Member Fox stated the direction that they were providing was consistent with the
direction they had previously provided to the applicant, and that was to get the doors away from
the front if possible. She would be happy if there were no doors on the front.
Mr. Hatfield stated he had not wanted to waste the DRC Member's time. If the store fronts were
glass and there were bays at the side and the back, would that be acceptable?
Chair Woollett stated the DRC would not provide an approval, but the applicant could gain a
reaction from them and personally that type of situation would be acceptable to him, but he
would need to review it.
Mr. Hatfield stated they knew what it would look like.
Committee Member Wheeler stated "no, they had not known what it would look like." He
encouraged the applicant to find a way to shield the doors if they were on the east and to help
hide those and to put something over them to provide shade.
Mr. Hatfield stated his point was if they could be hidden elsewhere the doors could be hidden up
front.
Committee Member Wheeler stated he felt the Committee Members had been clear on what they
wanted to see.
Mr. Hatfield stated they had a store that had a trellis application on it.
Committee Member Wheeler stated that would be something they could review.
Mr. Hatfield asked if trellises on the front were something the DRC would entertain?
Committee Member Wheeler stated he would, but he had not known how the other Members
felt.
Committee Member Imboden asked if there was any reason the trellises could not become some
type of Pergola, something deeper that could be walked under and it was an idea that could be
explored. As much as he would want to support doors at the side and the back of the building,
when he had sat on the Planning Commission and the Walgreen's store had come through, there
was a huge issue with the neighbors and the drive -thru being at the back and the entire plan was
redesigned due to that. He felt it was reasonable that those neighbors would still have concerns
about noise at the back; he had not wanted the applicant to be led down a path by the DRC in one
direction only to hit a brick wall.
Mr. Hatfield stated that was the reason to place the bays at the front.
Chair Woollett stated a very high wall was put in at that site.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for July 18, 2012
Page 17 of 26
Committee Member Imboden stated he just wanted to share that information.
Mr. Anasco stated they had tried to work with an internal design and that had impacted the store
negatively.
Mr. Hatfield stated they had worked with a design with three doors at the side and two at the
front. He reviewed that concept with the Committee Members. He explained where cars would
enter, be worked on internally, and then exit at the front. One of the doors at the front would
need to be wider in order to allow vehicles to maneuver to the exit. The design had a side entry
and was not the ideal situation, however, it could be made to work.
Mr. Pedersen stated that design would cut down on their storage and they may need to propose a
small storage addition to the back of the building for additional storage.
Committee Member Imboden asked was that design not doable due to the costs involved?
Mr. Hatfield stated no, not necessarily, they needed to get together with Walgreen's to ensure
that design would work for them.
Committee Member Imboden stated they would not lose any parking and he believed the site
was under parked.
Mr. Ortlieb stated the type of use reduced parking as the ratio was three cars per bay rather than a
square footage calculation and the site had been built as retail.
Committee Member Fox stated the direction just presented was more acceptable to her.
Mr. Hatfield stated that design was not ideal but they had wanted to present that concept and he
had seen it work in the past. The internal area would be very lit as the technicians needed light
to work, it would be visible.
Mr. Pedersen stated going back to what Chair Woollett had stated the site was located fairly well
back and it would be mitigated just by that.
Committee Member Wheeler stated with over - parking, could they widen up some of the
landscape fingers for larger trees?
Committee Member McCormack stated the store would not need additional parking as the
vehicles coming to the site would park inside for the tire repair.
Mr. Pedersen stated there would only be three spots inside the building and when the tire repair
was completed the cars would be parked outside.
Mr. Hatfield stated their typical building was 1,200 square feet of retail and the remainder parked
as warehouse. The store needed a lot less parking.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for July 18, 2012
Page 18 of 26
Committee Member Imboden asked Mr. Ortlieb if the new use would come into compliance with
parking?
Mr. Ortlieb stated it would not change; there was adequate parking at the site.
Committee Member Fox stated if the applicants studied the changes and any affect on parking to
ensure they were in compliance, she felt the alternate design, for her, was a more approvable
plan and she agreed pulling in more landscaping would be acceptable. When driving in to the
"Gateway of the City" there was another building there that would block the first bay from view.
Mr. Hatfield stated his hope in leaving the meeting would be to leave with an approval for the
new concept with a comment to add landscape, which they could make happen. It would allow
them to move forward and to meet with the neighbors and make sure they understood the project.
Committee Member McCormack stated if the landscape was presented as an upgrade rather than
screening, the design would be a much better concept as it retained the store front street scape
and was much better.
Committee Member Imboden stated bringing the trellis treatment out with columns would
actually stop the eye from seeing the opening further back; if that idea was looked at it could
work.
Committee Member McCormack stated if they proposed to use pots for the vine on the trellis, in
the past on projects he had cut out the bottom of the pot with a hole in the concrete to get to the
soil below and the vine would not be in such a contained situation. The addition of pots would
be adding jewelry and created a better design. To push the design to not just screen. The
verticality of the pot would create more architecture.
Mr. Anasco stated the only thing that they might run into a problem with in adding a trellis
would be that there were metal awnings on the store front.
Committee Members Fox and Wheeler stated the metal awnings could be removed.
The applicants reviewed the new concept with the Committee Members and reviewed where a
trellis could be added. The Committee Members reviewed the drawings and shared comments
about the design.
Committee Member Fox stated everyone would win, although the store would not have as much
capacity, but everyone would win in the neighborhood as there would not be doors in the back
with noise issues and it would make for a better "gateway" project.
Mr. Hatfield stated if they drew something up fairly quickly for the DRC to review would they
be able to get a counter approval?
Committee Member McCormack stated he would want to see a developed landscape plan.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for July 18, 2012
Page 19 of 26
Committee Member Imboden asked Staff if it would be possible for the applicant to come back
to the DRC for a cursory review with a scheduled review before the Planning Commission,
having a condition in place to allow the Planning Commission to send the proposal back to the
DRC to review the landscape plans and all of those things. He sensed the urgency from the
applicants in moving forward with their project.
Committee Member Fox stated it would be difficult for Staff to review a proposal that they had
just provided feedback on.
Committee Member Imboden asked if it was a dangerous path to go down?
Mr. Ortlieb stated it could be a dangerous path on a larger project. In the case of America's Tire,
if they reviewed it from a Police and Fire Department standpoint and it was a recommendation to
the Planning Commission, then Staff could walk the changes to the different City Departments to
ensure there were no code violations with the proposed new design. Information could then be
presented to the Planning Commission with the DRC's recommendation and what changes had
occurred and any issues involved.
Chair Woollett stated landscape plans could be submitted later.
Mr. Ortlieb stated yes.
Committee Member Wheeler stated he would offer a suggestion that a recommendation to the
Planning Commission be made based on the conditions that landscape and a trellis treatment
come back to the DRC.
Principal Planner, Anna Pehoushek, stated in the Packet there would need to be some elevations
included and she asked what would the expectation of the level of information be required to go
to the Planning Commission?
Mr. Ortlieb stated that would be the leap of faith the DRC would be taking to move the project
forward.
Committee Member Imboden stated he was not interested in taking a leap of faith. If the project
could go to the Planning Commission with the notation that the DRC approved the fagade
changes and the landscape, he was okay with allowing it to move forward. If the DRC would be
bound by the Planning Commission's decision, he was not certain he would want that to happen.
If the DRC was creating a Planning Division nightmare he was not certain he wanted to do that.
Chair Woollett stated it was not uncommon for cities to have the DRC follow Planning
Commission approval; and even if the Planning Commission approved it the DRC could reject it
and they had indicated pretty strong acceptance of the alternate plan. He was not uncomfortable
with moving it forward.
Committee Member Fox stated if the Police or Fire Departments had an issue with the Pergola
design, or if there was a parking issue and there needed to be changes, the DRC would not
necessarily be involved again.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for July 18, 2012
Page 20 of 26
Committee Member Imboden stated he agreed if there were issues that created changes it was
not a project he would want to go through.
Committee Member McCormack stated there were no Pergolas on the project and that was a
significant architectural feature. They had continued other such projects and he respected the
schedule the applicant was on, but he would want to review the proposal.
Committee Member Fox stated the applicants could have captured more time in submitting the
new design as an alternate proposal.
Committee Member McCormack stated that was the request at the previous meeting.
Committee Member Wheeler stated the dice were thrown and the applicant lost.
Mr. Hatfield stated guilty as charged. He had not wanted to waste the DRC's time and they
would return with some type of landscaping in the middle and trellises around the doors.
Chair Woollett asked Staff if the item could be agendized for their next meeting in two weeks?
Mr. Ortlieb stated he had not thought that was possible as he had taken time off during the first
two weeks of August and it would be very difficult to get it back on the Agenda during that time
frame. He wanted to notify the applicant that with the alternate design there would need to be a
more in -depth noise study to be presented to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Hatfield stated the noise study should still be valid as the doors would remain at the front.
Committee Member Wheeler asked if the Committee was ready for a motion to continue?
Chair Woollett stated yes.
Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to continue DRC No. 4615 -12, America's Tire,
with the comments and guidance provided during the review of the item.
SECOND: Robert Imboden
AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED
Committee Member Imboden asked Staff if it was possible for the applicant to present the new
design concept to the DRC for a cursory, courtesy review by the DRC and would that still
require a Staff Report if it was an agendized item?
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for July 18, 2012
Page 21 of 26
Mr. Ortlieb stated it would require a Staff Report and Staff had heard the comments and
concerns from the DRC very loud and clear during their discussion and the applicant could work
with Staff on what was needed.
Committee Member McCormack stated he would want the landscape plan flushed out to provide
for a viable and sustainable landscape treatment.
Mr. Hatfield asked if there was something specific he was looking for?
Committee Member McCormack stated a landscape plan that was integrated into the shopping
center and that it intended to be that way and had functional landscape treatments. All the things
a landscape architect would need to go through.
Committee Member Wheeler stated if there was a new planter area created would they run into
water quality issues for that site?
Committee Member McCormack stated that would be something that would need to be studied.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for July 18, 2012
Page 22 of 26
New Agenda Item:
(4) DRC No. 4634 -12 — THE TILTED KILT RESTAURANT
• A proposal to expand the outdoor patio of the existing restaurant and add artwork to the
exterior walls.
• 1625 W. Katella Avenue
• Staff Contact: Doris Nguyen, 714 - 744 -7223, do uyen(a,cityoforange.org
• DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission
This item was moved up to the beginning of the Agenda to accommodate the applicant's request.
Committee Member Wheeler stated he wanted to disclose that he had met with two of the
applicants last week to discuss the project.
Associate Planner, Doris Nguyen, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report.
Applicant, Matt Cunningham, address on file, stated he was available for questions on the
submittal before them.
Applicant, Mike Ayaz, address on file, stated he was accompanied by his architects, designers,
and developers, and they were also available to answer any questions the Committee Members
had.
Public Comment
None.
Chair Woollett opened the item to the Committee for discussion.
Committee Member Wheeler stated the Staff Report had a concern as to whether the trellis
should be tilted to match the trellis shape on the adjacent Lazy Dog restaurant. His opinion was
that there were enough similarities between the two restaurants and a different shape would be
better, to not have it appear the same. The Lazy Dog restaurant used some angles to match the
tower element, but he felt the new restaurant should be different. On the trellis construction, and
he had not had a chance to look at the details of that element, after going through it there was a
potential problem. The trellis supports that were shown were 6" x 6" posts with a post base. In
the Simpson catalog there was a notation that the post base was not recommended for
installations where the top of the post was unrestrained. The type of post base proposed would
not provide for a moment connection. The City of Orange had learned that the hard way. Back
when the sidewalks were re -done with brick pavers there were 4" x 4" posts with traffic parking
limit signs and the City used the same type of post bases and within a week they were knocked
over. The type of post bases proposed would not work as there would be cross grain tension on
the wood and it would just shear off. The Lazy Dog was beautifully done with the use of a
heavy duty strap that went up the side with two sets of rings that went around the post and would
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for July 18, 2012
Page 23 of 26
provide for moment resistance. He strongly recommended that type of installation. He went on
to state that the Lazy Dog construction had not used any angles for connecting the beams to the
cross beam and he assumed they used lags coming down through. He wondered if the applicant
wanted to think about that type of construction or had they wanted something different?
Applicant, John Hourian, address on file, stated on the lattice those would be screwed in, but on
the three header members he would add angles.
Committee Member Wheeler stated he had not felt strongly one way or the other as long as it
worked. If 2" x 2" were used on the lattice there could be a problem with warping and one of the
tricks that he had done was to connect a 2" x 2" at the top and at the bottom, toward the end to
provide more stability.
Mr. Hourian stated yes, to trim it out, that would work.
Committee Member Wheeler stated the Lazy Dog site used 2" x 3 ".
Committee Member McCormack asked if the applicant was going to make a presentation?
Chair Woollett stated he believed the applicant was prepared to do that if they needed to.
Mr. Cunningham stated it was his first time before the Design Review Committee and the project
was self - presenting. He wasn't certain if they wanted some background on the Tilted Kilt. The
Tilted Kilt was a successful chain of restaurants, a Celtic theme, and sports restaurant and was a
proven and growing concept. The restaurant would take over the Carino's site that had been
vacant for a number of years. The Shakey's Restaurant had not worked out and the site was in
the middle of demolition remodel when everything just stopped. OC Restaurant Group had
budgeted approximately 2 million dollars to bring the concept to Orange. It would bring in more
livelihood, revenue, and foot traffic to the center it would be located in. The materials and
design were all first class and blended with the Stadium Promenade, but also kept their own
individuality.
Chair Woollett stated the DRC was concerned with the aesthetics of the project and the item
would be going before the Planning Commission and that body would be reviewing some of the
other components of the proposed project. There were not a lot of changes being made to the
site, just adding the outdoor area.
Mr. Cunningham stated they were expanding the patio and adding some minor items to the
exterior by way of signage.
Committee Member Fox stated on the windows between the bar and the patio, the windows for
that area had a different look and had not matched the other windows. She wondered if the
windows could be trimmed out to match the trim elements of the building. That style of window
had a more industrial quality, but it would be nice to have some consistency with the windows.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for July 18, 2012
Page 24 of 26
Applicant, Robert Chapman, address on file, stated he was the architect for the project and he
had a couple of photos with views from the interior and the exterior. Wood could be placed on
the face to match the trim and painted out. It could be done.
The applicants provided photos of their restaurant location in Phoenix.
Committee Member Fox stated the trellis appeared to extend all the way over to pilasters (she
pointed those out on the plans), but on the landscape plan the trellis had not appeared to go that
far. She asked for clarification.
Mr. Hourian stated that may have been a foreground treatment and that should not have shown
on the elevation.
Ms. Nguyen stated there would need to be a correction to Sheet C3.2 to show that the trellis had
not extended to the double doors of the patio.
Committee Member Fox asked if the artwork would be considered as part of the signage?
Ms. Nguyen stated yes, they would be considered as a part of the signage and it would be looked
at separately at a later date.
Committee Member Fox stated the signage areas would be calculated later. There was artwork
on one facade that appeared to be blocked by a tree.
Mr. Chapman stated the tree would be thinned out.
Ms. Nguyen stated if the artwork location was moved would that be acceptable to the DRC?
The Committee Members agreed that it would be acceptable.
Committee Member McCormack stated the plan was well done and his first thought was on the
seat walls which were at 26" or 28 "; he asked if that was to match Lazy Dog?
Mr. Hourian stated it was established based on the tile they used. Those would not be seat walls.
Committee Member McCormack stated the patio had a sheet flow of 1 %, so there were no drains
needed, and it was a nice flow.
Mr. Hourian stated that was correct; they had not wanted dips and such that would necessitate
rearranging tables.
Committee Member McCormack stated that was a great approach. He asked if there were patio
umbrellas proposed?
Mr. Hourian stated yes, there would be umbrellas. They had not completed a seating plan.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for July 18, 2012
Page 25 of 26
Committee Member McCormack stated with the mesquite, and he imagined that was to match
the Lazy Dog. With the British Open in mind, and Lazy Dog could get pulled off as Miami or
Portland, but the Tilted Kilt was Scotland. On the plant material the Bird of Paradise was
synonymous with Southern California and there were other tropical plants.
Mr. Hourian stated he understood where Committee Member McCormack was heading. The
criteria that they employed was to use some of the plant material that was used across the street
at the Lazy Dog and they wanted some similarity with the trellis, but no to exactly match it.
Committee Member McCormack stated instead of using the Liriope, which was one of his
favorite plants, was to use more of a Scottish links rough type of grass look. It might pull that
Scottish feel off a little bit better. He suggested a more thematic landscape.
Mr. Hourian stated the criteria that they had received from the City was to pick up the theme of
the center and to match what existed at the site. The planting across the street was very eclectic
and they continued with that.
Committee Member McCormack stated he had no issues but just wanted to bring it up.
Committee Member Fox made a motion to recommend approval to the Planning Commission,
DRC No. 4634 -12, The Tilted Kilt Restaurant, subject to the conditions and findings contained
in the Staff Report and with the following additional conditions:
• To clarify that the trellis would not extend all the way over to the corner and to be corrected
on elevation Sheet C3.2.
• The post base shall be reconfigured to resist the bending moment.
• Trim to be added around the roll -up window at the bar to match other existing windows on
the north/east elevation.
SECOND: Tim McCormack
AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for July 18, 2012
Page 26 of 26
ADJOURNMENT:
Committee Member Fox made a motion to adjourn to the next regular scheduled Design Review
Committee meeting on Wednesday, August 1, 2012.
SECOND: Tim McCormack
AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED.
Meeting adjourned at 7:29 p.m.