2015-07-15 DRC Final MinutesCITY OF ORANGE
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
MINUTES - FINAL
Committee Members Present= Tim McCormack -Chair
Robert
Imboden
Anne McDermott
Craig Wheeler
Committee Member Absent Carol Fox Vice Chair
July 15, 2015
Staff in Attendance= Jennifer Lc, Acting Principal Planner
Robert Garcia, Senior Planner
Kelly Ribuffo, Associate Planner
Marissa Moshier, Associate Planner Historic Preservation
Sharon Penttila, Recording Secretary
Administrative Session — 5:00
Chair McCormack opened the Administrative Session at 5c07 p.m.
Chair McCormack inquired if there was any Policy or Procedural information. Jennifer Le, Acting
Principal Plainer, noted a correction on the Marywood project in which the agenda stated it was a
recommendation to the City Council but the motion by the "R-4C should be made to the Planning
Commission as written in the staff report.
Ms_ Le explained that initially this meeting had 5 items on the agenda but two were moved to the
next meeting_
Ms. Le refreshed everyone's memory on the Marywood project as far as the DRC's decision making
responsibly related to the environmental document and reminded the DRC that their obligation was
to review and consider the information in the Draft FIR and then to make their recommendations on
the project.
Committee Member Wheeler indicated he would be reensing himself from the Metrolink Parking
Structure project.
The Committee Members reviewed the Design Review Committee minutes for June 17, 2015 and
July 1, 201 5.
Robert Garcia, Project Planner for the Marywood project, stated he had received correspondence
from the public regarding his project wbieh pertained primarily to the mass and scale. Ms. Le
distributed the correspondence to the Committee Members.
Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to close the Administrative Session of the Design
Review Committee meeting_
SECOND: Robert Imboden
AYES: Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Anne McDermott, and Craig Wheeler
NOES: None
ABSENT: Carol Fox
MOTION CARRIED
Administrative Session adjourned at 5:19
p.m.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for July 15, 2015
Page 2 of 14
Regular Session — 5:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Committee Member Fox was absent. All other 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: June 17, 2015 and July 1, 2015
Committee Member Imboden made a motion to approve the minutes from the Design Review
Committee meetings of June 17, 2015 and July 1, 2015 as emended during the discussion at the
Administrative Session.
SECOND: Craig Wheeler
AYES: Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Anne McDermott, and Craig Wheeler
NOES: None
ABSENT: Carol Fox
MOTION CARRIED.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for July 15, 2015
Page 3 of 14
AGENDA ITEMS
Continued Item: None
New Agenda Items:
(2) DRC No. 4764 -14 Marywood Residential Development
• The proposed project would establish a maximum of 40 single - family residences on
approximately 16 acres of the project site.
• 2811 E. Villareal Drive
• Staff Contact: Robert Garcia, 714- 744 -7231
• DRC Action: Recommendation to the City Council
Chair McCormack clarified that the Committee's purview on this project was the design issues and
was not related to traffic or land use issues.
Robert Garcia, Senior Planner, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report.
The applicants who were present for the project were Douglas Woodward, Dave Kosco, Jarid Kosco,
Peter Carlson, John Pollock, and Patrick Murphy.
Mr. Woodward explained that they had met a few months ago with the DRC for a preliminary
review and it was a very valuable meeting. He spoke about the project site regarding the geology
and lack of compaction. He stated the existing slope that goes from the existing pad down to the
City's water tank is 1.6 to 1 versus the current code of 2 to 1. He stated their design meets today's
standards. He said one thing that had changed from a design perspective, as a result of talking to the
neighbors, is now the maintenance of the slopes will be the responsibility of the HOA. He explained
how they have placed pockets in the curbs to allow large trees without disturbing the parking.
Dave Kosco, architect, had heard the previous comments made by the DRC and changed the context
of the exterior designs. The floor plans have not changed.
Public Comments:
Chair McCormack opened the item to the Public for comments.
Terrie Warner, address on file, explained the concerns she listed in the correspondence given to the
DRC at the meeting. She spoke to a couple of items worth considering as conditions of approval
which she felt would help protect the City from potential liability and would make this a better
project. She said the key statement in the DEIR says the reduced density alternative would be
environmentally superior but it's not just the environment that would benefit by a modest reduction
in the scale and massing of the homes in this project. The other concern was the massive
restructuring of the hills. She addressed some of the other concerns she had listed on the documents
given to the DRC:
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for July 15, 2015
Page 4 of 14
• Concern with the hill, and she sees no provisions for reinforcing the slope, and she does not
want to see the neighbors' foundations crack and break.
• The terrace lots need clarification on slope reinforcement.
• Happy to see the landscaping has been re- allotted to the HOA at the slope.
• Density is horrible and was her biggest issue.
• 3 -car garages do not have a bad appearance.
• Concern with the parking issues on neighboring properties.
Michael A. Spix, address on file, had the following concerns:
• Concern because his neighbor had to spend a million dollars driving pillars beneath his living
room because of the instability of the hill. This plan looks like it will destabilize the hill even
more.
• Concern that the demolished material from the site will be pounded into rubble and then used
to fill in the hill. Has that been checked for asbestos? Also had concern with the dust and
dirt from the demolition itself.
• Concern with the removal of a number of the trees.
• Concern with the addition of traffic.
• Concern with the wildlife currently living on the site.
The public hearing was closed.
Ms. Le explained that the DRC's purview was design issues as well as aesthetics which was
primarily landscaping and she informed the public they are welcome to comment on anything and it
would be reflected in the minutes.
Mr. Woodward addressed the public comments:
• Regarding the slope stabilization, they will be bringing that area down and it will be a 2 to 1
slope. It will be compacted, approved by the City Engineer and all of it will be stabilized.
• Driveway — City zone code is clear on what is allowed on the frontage and it is within the
boundaries of that. They are not asking for any variances. If they did have three -car garages,
it would add 50% more concrete.
• Parking — they exceed the parking requirement and have 56 street parking spaces.
• Zoning — the property has been zoned R1 -6 prior to Marywood in 1960. They are not asking
for a zoning change or for more density than what is allowed.
• Asbestos — there will be a full study. It will be remediated and removed according to State
law.
• Trees — a full survey has been done and some trees will be saved.
• Schools — they will be paying school fees.
Pat Murphy, landscape architect, has worked with an arborist and is taking steps to reuse a number
of the trees. The pine trees will not be saved due to the Fire Department requirements. The planter
pockets on the street gives them an opportunity to promote a canopy type of scenario on the
streetscape. Maintaining the slope area with native type of plant materials responding to the drought
and water conservation. He described the park area which would also be an area for water retention,
and irrigation for the project would all be a drip system. They will be using materials that are
indigenous to the site.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for July 15, 2015
Page 5 of 14
Chair McCormack opened the item to the Committee for discussion.
The DRC commented on the following:
• Disappointed that the DRC comments on the minutes from the December 17, 2014 meeting
were not addressed by the applicant which included:
o Grouping similar architectural styles together. Mr. Woodward stated buyers like
diversity but they have not plotted the elevations yet.
o Carrying the style around each house to some degree but no elevations were given for
the sides and rear as well as no roof plans.
o Privacy concerns between units and the neighboring residences.
o Wanted to see what the street trees look like and how they will be maintained.
• In favor of reducing the size of the concrete driveway and using tandem parking.
• Drawings of the front elevations are an improvement from the last submittal.
• Recommend this project come back to the DRC before going to the Planning Commission.
• Concern with the density and lack of street elevation drawings.
• Suggested flipping the house on Lot 2 or look at another plan that might work better.
• Privacy concern with Lot 17 because of the houses which are downslope from it.
• Landscaping questions, concerns, and comments:
• Will the landscape trees along the perimeter be in danger of people who want to
enhance their views? Applicant stated these would be maintained by the HOA.
• Questioned applicant as to whether they had drafted any CC &Rs for the trees at the
front of the property and how they will be maintained. Applicant stated the language
has not been developed yet.
• Concern that the family of pine trees are quite large with some bigger than others and
the fact that pine trees are flammable and yet are being proposed for the street tree.
Which pine is it? Mr. Carlson explained that the Fire Department was concerned with a
tree that had a large canopy encroaching over the street in the travel lanes.
• Questioned if the trees were moved two feet over, would the Fire Department not have
that concern.
• Questioned the height of the street trees. Mr. Murphy stated they would be the height
of the homes.
• Want to see what the street trees look like and how they will be maintained.
• Asked what was the spread for the Eldarica pine tree? Mr. Murphy stated 25'.
• Disappointed with the street scene and lack of control on landscaping maintenance on
private space.
• Upper pads that have been scraped should have some soil treatment because of the lack
of organics in the soil.
• Concern with putting a big tree in a small space because it causes problems. Want to
promote trees that complement the area. Did not like big trees in small lots so the only
chance to use a large tree is as a street tree. Suggested using small trees in order to give
them form, rhythm, or cadence that is strong and meaningful. Mr. Murphy stated they
would be transplanting some of the existing trees but they are restrained by the small
space on the front of the homes.
• Concern that all the renderings on the elevation plans show woodland trees but they are
not on the landscape plan. Need a better understanding on what is really going to
happen.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for July 15, 2015
Page 6 of 14
• Suggested taking a portion out of the front yard and making the planter bigger to
accommodate a larger tree.
• Concern with the maintenance of the 6' vertical slope and the patchwork quilting effect
at the top. Mr. Woodward said it could be made part of the HOA document that it has
to be maintained in that plant family. HOA would make it so it would be maintained.
• Want more thought on the plant palette and the possibility of a canopy tree to shade the
sidewalk and street.
• Regarding plant palette design, they would like to see something that is a good example
of what is going to survive with the soil and drought conditions.
• DRC has been shown on previous submittals by other applicants a good description of
what the landscaping plants will actually be and they want the same to be shown on this
submittal.
• Concern with artificial turf being used by homeowners and maintaining the front yard
landscaping. Mr. Woodward said they can define the street trees and make the HOA
maintain it.
• Make sure certain trees are in a proper location.
• Concern with the alignment of the windows for privacy.
• Concern about the amount of concrete at the end of the cul -de -sacs but understood not a lot
could be done about that.
• Less concerned with the spillover parking because of the nature of this neighborhood.
• Glad the sloped portion of the property is now common ownership.
• Concern with not having a sense of the aesthetics of this community beyond the front
facades.
• Request the applicant come back with a slope palette.
• Questioned the density of the trees on the slopes and how many would there be per 1000 sq.
ft. Mr. Murphy stated 1 to 500 which would respect the views.
• Want the concept of the lighting.
• Suggest when they do look at the whole house and elevations think about a package of
enhancements for the end situations that are exposed.
• Complimented the front elevation designs.
Mr. Woodward apologized for the lack of detail on the plans which the DRC deserved.
Committee Member Imboden summarized the DRC's feedback as follows:
1. Committee recommending they consider grouping similar types of houses together in terms
of facade and architectural styles.
2. Lack of side and rear elevations and roof plans make it hard to access what happens beyond
the streetscape.
3. Project be reviewed further regarding the privacy issues that may exist between the
alignment of the homes and convey that to the Committee.
4. Consider reversing the home on Lot 2 and rotating the home on Lot 17 to make a better
separation from the house below.
5. Consider the manner in which the HOA would maintain trees including street trees and those
on the lawns and have a plan for that.
6. Recommend a soil study to ensure the organics in the soil are suitable and speak to that.
7. Further study and detail the drawings on how the overall site will be landscaped.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for July 15, 2015
Page 7 of 14
8. Want more streetscape drawings with more than just 3 elevations. Explain in site sections.
9. Need to know what the materials are on the plans.
Committee Member Imboden made a motion to continue DRC No. 4764 -14, Marywood Residential
Development, to give the applicant the opportunity to address the range of comments, questions and
concerns the Committee had during this meeting to a date uncertain
SECOND: Craig Wheeler
AYES: Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Anne McDermott, and Craig Wheeler
NOES: None
ABSENT: Carol Fox
MOTION CARRIED.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for July 15, 2015
Page 8 of 14
(3) DRC No. 4798 -15 Raising Cane's Restaurant
• A proposal to demolish an existing 11,854 SF office building and construct anew 3,823 SF
drive -thru restaurant.
• 2249 N. Tustin Street
• Staff Contact: Kelly Ribuffo, 714- 744 -7223, kribuffo(a,cityoforan eg.org
• DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission
Kelly Ribuffo, Associate Planner, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. She
explained that the blue dog artwork on the north and west elevations should be considered a design
element on the building.
The applicants who were present for the project were Robert Montgomery, Raising Cane's; Jack
Kiesel, landscape architect; and Phil Schanberger, PM Design Group.
Robert Montgomery gave an overview of the restaurant's concept which started in Baton Rouge. He
explained how the founder of Raising Cane's is committed to giving back to the community and he
does not cut back on materials and landscaping. The design of the building includes stucco, bricks,
and stone. Mr. Montgomery indicated that they usually use real stone and brick but have to use cut
brick due to earthquakes.
Public Comments
Chair McCormack opened the item to the Public for comments. There were none.
Chair McCormack opened the item to the Committee for discussion.
The DRC commented on the following:
• Questioned the rendering on Page 4.1 where there was a diagonal line and asked what it
attached to because it looked like it went down to the glass. Mr. Montgomery explained it
should be the metal awning.
• Questioned how the awning was supported. Mr. Montgomery indicated it was prefab made
and called out on Page 4.2.
• Commented that it was confusing on Page C5 where Sign I is pointing to the sign and No. 1
is pointing to the asphalt.
• Questions on Sheet L1.1 wondering about the landscaping on the drive aisle and the possibly
of the headlights shining into the adjacent apartments. Mr. Montgomery said this issue had
been researched and they did not find a problem with headlights shining into the apartments.
• Question on Page A01.1 where three places called out for stone but the plans are referring to
those as brick.
• Artwork comments:
• Questioned how it was supported. Mr. Montgomery stated stainless steel brackets
would be used and pinned away a little from the wall.
• Questioned the image and what it looked like installed. Mr. Montgomery thought it
was on a fiberglass or a metal panel with an enhanced photo.
• Concern with photographic images on buildings of this size — is it like a billboard?
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for July 15, 2015
Page 9 of 14
• Concern that even though there was no writing on it indicating an advertisement, it
does have an image associated with the restaurant.
• Would like to see how it will be executed and be shown a larger rendering. Ms.
Ribuffo said it could come back to the Committee as a condition of approval.
• Questioned if it could come back as a sign submittal. Ms. Le stated as it stands the
sign program would be handled over the counter and if there was a specific element
to come back to the DRC, they need to specify that.
• Concern it was a photograph as opposed to a painting, mural, or mosaic.
• Questioned how staff says it is not a sign. Ms. Ribuffo explained that the image itself
does not convey a particular commercial message for the business.
• Concern for when a big colonel or Wendy's comes back. Ms. Le stated the code does
not have guidance for public art. She explained if the DRC was not comfortable with
this component, they could move the project forward and have this issue come back
with more information.
o Questioned how this will be handled in the future.
Question on Page A04.2 where the curve form over the Tustin Street entry doesn't look like
it has an overhang. There was concern about the dirt building up on the roof and streaking
down the wall when it rained.
Questioned how each elevation would be lit. Mr. Montgomery explained the lighting design.
Landscaping comments:
o Concern with a bio filter, a light, and a tree in the same spot.
o Commented on the tropical mix of trees.
o Suggested using king palms bigger than 15 gallon.
o Liked the mosaic of plant material and the layout.
o Concern with the Dietes bicolor perennials being proposed since it tends to get burnt
and suggested staying away from the Chondropetalum tectorum.
o Commented that the Arctostaphylos grows very slow in this area.
o Questioned the location of the grease interceptor and was told it was a bailout lane.
o Suggested putting plants in the areas with DG or at least contouring it.
o Commented that Lavendar tends to get overwatered and needs its own zone.
Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to recommend approval of DRC No. 4798 -15, Raising
Cane's, to the Planning Commission based on the findings and conditions listed in the Staff Report
and with the additional conditions:
1. The artwork come back to the Committee prior to the issuance of the Building permit final
together with Staff s recommendations on how signage versus art is defined.
2. The landscape plan come back to the Committee prior to the issuance of the Building permit
final to show how the suggestions made and the changes necessary for the lighting and tree
conflicts are handled.
SECOND: Robert Imboden
AYES: Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Anne McDermott, and Craig Wheeler
NOES: None
ABSENT: Carol Fox
MOTION CARRIED.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for July 15, 2015
Page 10 of 14
(4) DRC No. 4675 -14- Metrolink Parking Structure Project
• A proposal to construct a new parking structure at the northwest corner of Chapman Avenue
and Lemon Street. The structure would provide 611 parking spaces on five levels (two below
grade, one at grade and two above grade).
• 130 N. Lemon Street, Old Towne Historic District
• Staff Contact: Jennifer Le, 714- 744 -7238, ile ,cit o�ge.org
• DRC Action: Preliminary Review
Committee Member Wheeler recused himself due to the proximity to his office and left the room.
Jennifer Le, Acting Principal Planner, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report.
She explained that the last time the DRC saw this project was on March 20, 2013. The main
changes since the DRC last saw the project are the redesign of the photovoltaic panels to be flush -
mounted on the top deck and the roof top lights which were reduced in height. Also the previous
proposal included a retail, restaurant and a paseo element but these elements were eliminated and
will come forward at a later date as a separate and independent project. She was seeking the
Committee's feedback on the design of the project and suggestions for final plan refinements and
details specifically on the color and materials board; landscape palette; the bike plaza area; the
treatment on the northeast corner of the site where an air vent is located; treatment for the concrete
walls that are visible through the parking structure openings; and any suggestions for breaking up the
look of some of the long walls on Lemon Street and on the west side of the parking structure. A
Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the project and it was released for public review on
June 10th and closed July 15 Due to the federal funding for the project, the project will also
comply with the National Environmental Policy Act and Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act. The DRC will be asked to make a recommendation on the Mitigated Negative
Declaration at a later meeting. The Executive Summary and the Proposed Mitigation Measures from
the Historic Resources Report were provided as an attachment to the DRC staff report.
Damon Dusterhoft, from LPA, and Lisa Kim, project manager from City of Orange Economic
Development, were present to answer any questions the Committee Members had.
Mr. Dusterhoft explained some of the design concepts and changes that have been made.
Ms. Kim explained project funding and upcoming schedule milestones. Staff s goal is to bring the
DRC's recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council at the December and January
meetings in order to request the Federal funding allocation in February.
Mr. Dusterhoft pesented the color and materials board and displayed two material boards showing
the Committee the proposed brick with and without the anti - graffiti coating.
Public Comments
Chair McCormack opened the item to the Public for comments. Jeff Frankel, representing OTPA,
stated they have been involved with the project since the inception and feel it has changed for the
better. He made the following comments:
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for July 15, 2015
Page 11 of 14
• OTPA has met with staff and attended the workshop.
• OTPA agrees there is a need for parking and this is one of the better locations for this
structure.
• OTPA had commented on the lighting standards and solar panels on the upper level and
those issues have been resolved.
• Asked that the elevator towers be relocated and set back away from the plane of the building
to reduce the mass and height.
• Concern there are too many variations of color on the bricks and suggested using 2 or 3
colors instead of 4. They don't want to replicate the Chapman blend.
• Commented that the anti - graffiti and standard bricks are close in appearance.
• Stated they are not a fan of the wall art and thought it unnecessary.
• In the context study of the MND, this building was compared with other buildings that OTPA
felt were inappropriate, for example, the Chapman University Law School and Film School.
A context study should compare this structure with historic buildings.
• They are in support of the project and feel it is a necessity.
Chair McCormack opened the item to the Committee for discussion.
The DRC had questions and comments on the following:
• Questions on the materials board and how and where they are going to be used. Mr.
Dusterhoft explained the materials being used on various parts of the structure.
• Bricks
o DRC asked if there was a closer blend of brick colors and commented that there was too
much variation in the blend. Suggested eliminating the dark or light brick from the
blend.
o Not a fan of the Chapman blend because it looks artificial.
• Questioned the choice of smoked glass with the brick colors and asked if there was any
thought about graffiti on that glass. Ms. Le explained that the glass was chosen to allow full
visibility into the elevator shafts and stairwells, but the color of the glass could be modified.
The DRC felt it might be better to use clear glass to help hide the graffiti.
• Questioned the tilt -up concrete color. Mr. Dusterhoft explained it would be a precast colored
concrete with bricks inlaid during fabrication.
• Questioned how the panels are interlocked. Mr. Dusterhoft explained there are pilasters that
would bring the panels together and the panels would be bolted onto the skin of the parking
garage.
• Artwork
o Questioned the use of the artwork — what would it be and what size?
o Concern with mounting it on the pilasters and questioned if that was the right concept.
o Concern with the packing crate graphics and whether the public would understand it. Ms.
Le explained the design idea behind using the packing crate graphics stating it was
intended to be historically- referenced public art using crate graphics from local
packinghouses. The artwork itself would provide some variation and help break up the
mass of the walls. Mr. Dusterhoft indicated the artwork would be permanently mounted.
o Concern with the accuracy of the shadows shown on the elevation plan.
o The DRC liked the artwork locations which would help break up the long building but it
depends on what the images would be. Are these images for the pedestrians, shoppers or
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for July 15, 2015
Page 12 of 14
residences? What will the material be and how will it be executed? What would be the
scale of a packing crate image? They need to see all the details before rendering an
opinion.
o Ms. Le asked if the DRC felt the public art was an important component of the design.
She explained there are other options including eliminating the artwork and doing
something else such as a greenscreen or using vines. Committee Members felt public art
would contribute something to the building but it had to be done right and be high
quality.
• Landscaping
• Concern there was a disconnect between the architecture and what was intended in terms
of landscaping.
• Concern with the Prunus Caroliniana "Bright and Tight' that could grow up to 25' tall
and could cover the artwork. Suggested using a plant that only grows to a height of 4'.
• Suggested using a hedge to eliminate graffiti on the brick.
• Suggested using a greenscreen in which the plants would grow on the metal armature.
• Questioned the street trees being used on Lemon and Maple. Ms. Le explained the street
trees were taken from the Santa Fe Depot Specific Plan which identifies a tree palette for
this area. This project is intended to be consistent with the Depot palette.
• Concern with the street tree palette plan because it would create a disharmonious section
of the street. DRC did not understand the approach and felt it did not make urban design
sense.
• Asked questions about the PV panel design on the roof.
• Asked questions about future plans for the construction staging area including the paseo. Ms.
Kim explained that the project does not have a plan for the staging area at the moment. She
stated the original plan after construction was to construct a temporary surface parking lot but
the demand for retail in Old Towne was high and there is interest from the development
community for redevelopment of the staging area.. The DRC felt a fallback plan was needed.
• Questioned who would be using the parking structure. Ms. Le explained that 500 of 611
spaces are for transit users and 111 are general use spaces. Ms. Kim explained the Parking
Management Plan.
Ms Le asked for DRC feedback on the design elements identified in the staff report as follows:
Colors and Materials
• Ms. Le stated staff heard feedback on the glass and dialing down the variation of the brick
colors.
Landscape palette
• Ms. Le will talk to the design team about putting together a cohesive landscape concept to
present to the DRC that takes into consideration the design elements.
Bike Plaza area and canopy design
• DRC suggested paving should be per City standards (natural gray with scored top cast).
Tree grates
• Tree grates would be an opportunity to do something special. DRC suggested making the
edges more interesting with a vertical tree protector and make them an urban design element.
NE corner treatment with vent structure
• Suggested using bamboo instead of 5 agave plants.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for July 15, 2015
Page 13 of 14
• Questioned if the vent structure could be tall and narrow. It could be a nice design element
and more interesting plants could be used there. Need to make it a statement or make it
disappear.
Concrete barriers behind the openings in the parking structure
• The DRC was not opposed to the treatment as proposed as long as it was nicely finished.
Places on elevations with long wall expanses
DRC reiterated they are not sure how the landscaping interacts with the art and the building.
Concern that there are independent pieces that are not communicating. The landscaping is not
composed yet and the verticality of the landscape, the signage and the openings that are
required needs more thought.
• Landscaping is a way to break up some of the areas.
• How does the cadence of the street tree spacing work?
• Is the artwork important for those walking or driving?
• DRC wants to see where and how the materials are coordinated.
• What is the lighting concept?
• Are roof tops of cars going to be seen on the roof? How high is the parapet?
• How will lighting be designed behind the glass and how will it appear from the outside?
• DRC wants to see the artwork as far as the detail, quality, the finish and how it is mounted
(framed or not).
For preliminary review only — no action is required.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for July 15, 2015
Page 14 of 14
ADJOURNMENT:
Committee Member Imboden made a motion to adjourn to the next regularly scheduled Design
Review Committee meeting on August 5, 2015.
SECOND: Anne McDermott
AYES: Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, and Anne McDermott
NOES: None
ABSENT: Carol Fox and Craig Wheeler
MOTION CARRIED.
Meeting adjourned at 10:01 p.m.