Loading...
2016-04-20 DRC Final Minutes CITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES - FINAL April 20, 2016 Committee Members Present: Carol Fox - Chair Craig Wheeler — Vice Chair Robert Imboden Tim McCormack Anne McDermott Staff in Attendance: Robert Garcia, Senior Planner Jennifer Le, Principal Planner Sharon Penttila, Recording Secretary Administrative Session — 5:00 Chair Fox opened the Administrative Session at 5:08 p.m. Chair Fox inquired if there was any Policy or Procedural information. Robert Garcia, Senior Planner, indicated there was no Policy or Procedural information. The Committee requested in the future if the distribution of the binders was delayed that at least a partial binder be given to them with papers inserted saying a staff report would be forthcoming or that the agenda be emailed the week before with a note as to when to expect the binders. Committee Members reviewed the Design Review Committee minutes for April 6, 2016. Vice Chair Wheeler indicated he would be recusing himself from the first 2 items due to the proximity to his office. Vice Chair Wheeler made a motion to close the Administrative Session of the Design Review Committee meeting. SECOND: Robert Imboden AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Anne McDermott, and Craig Wheeler NOES: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. Administrative Session adjourned at 5:23 p.m. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for April 20, 2016 Page 2 of 15 Regular Session — 5:32 p.m. ROLL CALL: All Committee Members were present. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Opportunity for members of the public to address the Design Review Committee on matters not listed on the Agenda. There were no speakers. CONSENT ITEMS: (1) APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 6, 2016 Vice Chair Wheeler made a motion to approve the minutes from the Design Review Committee meetings of April 6, 2016 as emended during the discussion at the Administrative Session. SECOND: Anne McDermott AYES: Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Anne McDermott, and Craig Wheeler NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: Carol Fox MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for April 20, 2016 Page 3 of 15 (2) DRC No. 4833 -15 Burger Parlor Signage • A proposal for a new projecting wall sign and window signage. • 149 N. Glassell Street, Old Towne Historic District • Staff Contact: Kelly Ribuffo • DRC Action: Final Determination Vice Chair Wheeler recused himself due to the proximity to his office and left the room. The Committee pulled this item from the consent calendar for discussion. The applicants who were present for this project were Joseph Mahon and Thanh Vinh. Public Comments: Chair Fox opened the item to the Public for comments. There were none. Chair Fox opened the item to the Committee for discussion. The DRC commented on the following: • Noted under the analysis it left out an accurate account of the field conditions that the Committee had previously requested. It was not clear on Attachment 3 which showed the sign centered with 5" above and below whereas on Attachment 6 it was no longer centered and it had 6 holes spaced within the grout lines, and the detail for the project showed 8 holes. Mr. Vinh indicated Attachment 6 was correct with 6 bolts showing the correct placement of the bolts. • Questioned the appropriateness of the through bolts being proposed which attached the sign to the masonry wall. • Noted on Condition #1 it made a reference to Attachment 3 and suggested leaving it as Attachment 3 with the exception that the anchor bolts would be 6 in number and be spaced per Attachment 6 and wondered if they should be expansion anchors. • Mr. Garcia clarified that the bolts would go all the way through and at least 2 on the bottom were in the store and the rest were above the ceiling. • Noted boring holes through masonry units was not a reversible condition and this was the reason the project was asked to come back with accurate field conditions. • Concerned about what will happen to the existing holes in the building and thought this should be part of the application. Committee Member Imboden made a motion to approve DRC No. 4833 -15, Burger Parlor Signage, based on the findings and conditions listed in the Staff Report with the additional condition: 1. Condition #1 shall be changed to state that prior to submittal for permits that the details reflected in Attachment 3 be modified to match the scenario as shown in Attachment 6, both in the number of attachment bolts as well as the location of the plate within the parapet. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for April 20, 2016 Page 4 of 15 SECOND: Anne McDermott AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, and Anne McDermott NOES: None ABSENT: None RECUSED: Craig Wheeler MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for April 20, 2016 Page 5 of 15 AGENDA ITEMS New Agenda Items: (3) DRC No. 4675 -13 Metrolink Parking Structure Project • The Design Review Committee (DRC) previously recommended approval of the Metrolink Parking Structure Project subject to conditions. DRC review is required to make a final determination as to conformance with previously approved plans and conditions related to brick pattern details, landscaping, and lighting. In addition, sign details for the parking structure have been further developed. DRC recommendation to the City Council regarding project signage is requested. • 130 N. Lemon Street • Staff Contact: Jennifer Le, 714- 744 -7238, j1e @cityoforange.org • DRC Action: Final Determination and Recommendation to City Council Vice Chair Wheeler had also recused himself from this item due to the proximity to his office. Jennifer Le, Principal Planner, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. She explained that subsequent to the DRC's review of the landscaping and lighting the City's Public Works Department and the Police Department had additional comments that changed some of those details and she wanted to let the Committee know what those changes were. She described the proposed blade signs located on the elevator towers. The applicant who was present for this project was Damon Dusterhoft. Public Comments: Chair Fox opened the item to the Public for comments. There were none. Chair Fox opened the item to the Committee for discussion. The DRC commented on the following: Landscaping and Lighting • The Committee as a whole, disagreed and was disappointed with the decision the City Council made regarding the tree grates. From the Committee's standpoint the addition of larger tree grate sizes were to make the trees more sustainable. The committee suggested reopening this issue with the City Council when it returns to them for approval of the signs. • Questioned where the lighting had changed. Mr. Dusterhoft explained that it had not changed but now the heights were identified. He described the street lights and the pedestrian poles. He explained the location and number of the LN2s, LN3s and the SCE2s. • Questioned the height of the acorn lights and was told 13'. • Questioned the spacing of the SCE2s. Mr. Dusterhoft explained that the spacing was relatively close. Ms. Le stated the location of the lights needed to meet photometric standards. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for April 20, 2016 Page 6 of 15 • Verified the LN2s and LN3s were only on Maple and Lemon. • Ms. Le noted the Landscape Materials Plan L1.01 controlled the light locations. Brick Pattern on the Towers • The Committee discussed the 3 brick options. • Asked if the wire cuts could be horizontal rather than vertical on the bricks. Mr. Dusterhoft did not have an answer but would find out. • Discussed whether to have the bricks flush or with a plane change. • The Committee supported Option #1 as submitted. Signage • Noted that the Committee would recommend approval of the signage to City Council. • Verified that only the large outside signs were for DRC review. • Mr. Dusterhoft shared the color palette for the signage. • Noted that even though the signs were exceeding signage area, it was mitigated by the fact there were only 2 on the entire building. • Verified that the orange color was only on the signage and that it would be a neon sign. • Verified the location of the "Full" sign inside the building. • Ms. Le indicated the shop drawings that the contractor will provide will go to staff review for conformance with any conditions. • Questioned how the signs would be attached to the building. Chair Fox made a motion to recommend approval of DRC No. 4675 -13 for project signage, Metrolink Parking Structure Project, to the City Council based on the findings and conditions listed in the Staff Report, and with the additional conditions: 1. If the method of attachment for the sign does not appear as shown on the drawing, that the sign shall come back to the DRC prior to the issuance of the building permit. 2. Regarding the brick patterning, the Committee has opted for Option #1. 3. The lighting layout for the street lights shall be as indicated on Plan L1.01. 4. Noted that all DRC Members agreed that they were disappointed with the City Council's decision of removing the recommendation of the '/2 grates on each side of the 7' square grates for the sustainability of the urban forest element, that the trees were at risk without them, and it was not an aesthetic recommendation. SECOND: Robert Imboden AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, and Anne McDermott NOES: None ABSENT: None RECUSED: Craig Wheeler MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for April 20, 2016 Page 7 of 15 (4) DRC No. 4843 -16 3800 Chapman Apartments (Orange Collection) • The applicant proposes to construct 277 multiple family residential apartment units with an internal parking structure and a commercial office parking structure to replace existing surface parking. • 3800 W. Chapman Avenue • Staff Contact: Robert Garcia, 714 - 744 -7231, rgarcia @citvoforange.org • DRC Action: Preliminary Review The applicants who were present for this project were Donald Lamm, Tarek Shaer, Peter Quintanilla, Bryan Sevy, Mark Schattinger, and Douglas Jones. Mr. Lamm explained that they have made some changes to the projects based on the DRC's comments from the March 2 meeting and they were anxious to move the projects forward. Mr. Quintanilla provided a PowerPoint presentation beginning with the master plan for the project area. Mr. Shaer explained how they had taken into consideration the comments made by the DRC at the last meeting including architectural form and style; colors and materials; street activation and pedestrian experience; parking structures; and landscape and hardscape. Comments made by the applicant regarding 3800 Chapman Apartments: • Mr. Shaer stated the target market for this complex was professionals, students, couples and singles and they have activated the driveways along with the club house in the back and the pool in the courtyard. • Mr. Quintanilla showed where live /work units would be located to activate the streetscape. He explained how the paving changed as it goes into the plaza area. He showed the area where food trucks could be located and how the pool area was connected with the plaza. • Mr. Shaer said the inspiration for this building was from Richard Meier. • Mr. Sevy explained how Richard Meier puts both plane and solid forms together. They also took inspiration from Richard Meier on the coloring. He described the 4 elevations of the building and the different corners. • Mr. Shaer and Mr. Sevy explained the changes made to the parking structure by enhancing the sides with fin materials, living walls, and green walls. Public Comments: Chair Fox opened the item to the Public for comments. There were none. Chair Fox opened the item to the Committee for discussion. The DRC commented on the following: Building City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for April 20, 2016 Page 8 of 15 • Liked the new design on the elevations because they are not broken up as much and have more harmony and agreement. • Thought this was a huge improvement with the new design and that it was simple but sophisticated. • Concerned with the stone facade on the lower level and wanted it to be unique and special. • Not convinced the plaza was a plaza with the amount of traffic that would be in it. • Liked the shades of white and the renderings. • Suggested in the plaza area of making it a zero curb line to make it one plane and use bollards to create a safe zone. Mr. Shaer described the bollards they are proposing to use in various areas. • Noted the extensive glazing and to keep in mind the exposures in the reality of that. • Suggested using the same planting palette but making them taller. • Noted the facade that faces Chapman was the one missing some specialness and it had a lot of repetition and no mass break. Suggested making something slightly different in the center or at the corners. Parking Structure • Thought the weakest spot on the design was the use of the circles and suggested simplifying the design. • Noted the parking structure got a lot taller. Mr. Shaer said it did by one extra level because the owner wanted more parking spaces. • Noted a spangle panel had been added and suggested extending the fins up so it would look closer to what had previously been designed. • Questioned the green walls that did not come to the ground and if the planter would be built into railing. Mr. Shaer explained the living wall (a landscape wall) and the green wall (non- living green panel wall). • Requested samples of materials and colors. Mr. Sevy shared the sample boards they had brought. • Questioned the elevated panels and wondered if they should look like the ones that are alive or should they be treated differently. Encouraged them to have more contrast with the live wall. Mr. Shaer stated that they did not have to be green. • Suggested on the west elevation that instead of the floating green screens make something with the same material as the fins. • Liked the palm trees being used as a common thread throughout the project site. • Thought this structure was the weakest link on the whole project. • Not happy with 7 planes above the ground and the fakeness of the green screens. Would favor art on those screens or bringing the blue fins around. • Thought the design should focus on what it would look like at night. • Suggested making it simpler like the existing parking structure in the area. For Preliminary Review only — no action required. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for April 20, 2016 Page 9 of 15 (5) DRC No. 4844 -16 City Parkway West Apartments (Orange Collection) • The applicant proposes to construct 213 multiple family residential apartment units with an internal parking structure and a commercial office parking structure to replace existing surface parking. • 500 & 600 City Parkway • Staff Contact: Robert Garcia, 714- 744 -7231, rgarcia @cityoforange.org • DRC Action: Preliminary Review Comments made by the applicant regarding City Parkway West Apartments: • Mr. Shaer stated the target market for this complex was for families, young couples, and singles. • Mr. Quintanilla explained the 3 different spaces which included an area for children, a connection into the mall, and a mixed use space. • Mr. Shaer said the inspiration for this building was from Richard Neutra. • Mr. Shaer explained the changes made to the colors, materials, patios, balconies, and roof lines. • Mr. Sevy showed the view corridors to the Mall. • Mr. Shaer shared the proposed green treatment on the 4 elevations of the parking structure. Chair Fox opened the item to the Committee for discussion. The DRC commented on the following: Building • Noted the design was a big improvement by simplifying the colors, lightening up the recessed area and emphasizing the base, middle, and top. • Liked the recessed part in making the building appear to be a separate building. • Encouraged not making it diagonal where the balconies came together in the corners. Suggested popping it back out to a right angle corner. • Liked the lower portion of the elevation in the rendering. • Suggested using one color stone and laying them horizontally. • Liked the change in texture and materials. • Noted the visual impact of the trees placed on the edge of the project and wanted a unified statement. • Liked the plaza and the open space. • Suggested in the food truck area of planting sycamores. • Wanted to see a community garden. Mr. Schattinger noted the population would be too transient for this. • Complimented the treatment of the paving on the fire lane. Parking Structure • Questioned if some of the parking spaces had been removed. Mr. Sevy said yes. • Wanted to see when it goes to the Planning Commission that the applicant tries to simplify how the parking would work making it clear how existing parking was going away. Mr. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for April 20, 2016 Page l0 of 15 Garcia indicated that would be something that would be worked out when the full package was submitted to staff for review. • Noted the random live green wall heights and questioned if the randomness of the width had been considered. • Liked the corners with the stair elements and the entries. For Preliminary Review only — no action required. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for April 20, 2016 Page 11 of 15 (6) DRC No. 4845 -16 City Plaza Apartments (Orange Collection) • The applicant proposes to construct 331 multiple family residential apartment units with an internal parking structure and a commercial office parking structure to replace existing surface parking. • 1 City Boulevard West • Staff Contact: Robert Garcia, 714 - 744 -7231, rgarcia @cityoforange.org • DRC Action: Preliminary Review Comments made by the applicant regarding City Plaza Apartments: • Mr. Shaer stated the target market for this complex was for young professional, singles, and couples with an active lifestyle. • Mr. Quintanilla stated this complex was in the shadow of the mall and included activity rooms, shops, outdoor rooms, a dog park, and a sunken green area with grass. • Mr. Shaer explained the tilted walls, the orange elements, and the porte cochere. • Mr. Sevy stated they now have more contrast between the elements, the east elevation has a stronger base with darker material, and he shared the balcony design. • Mr. Shaer said the parking design was kept basically the same and how the all the sides were being addressed. Chair Fox opened the item to the Committee for discussion. The DRC commented on the following: Building • Questioned if the orange columns would be in conflict with the tree trunks hiding some of the features. Mr. Sevy said the tree canopy would be just above the pedestrian level. • Noted the texture was improved and refined. • Questioned the material on the black parts. Mr. Sevy said it was a vertical, fiber siding. • Concerned with the proposed trees around the base which might hide the architecture. Suggested using a Columbia or palm tree. Mr. Schattinger said he hoped the canopy would be above the base. • Noted the perspective of the apartment entrance was great. Parking Structure • Liked that there was no longer the curve and there was a cut -away to the interior. • Liked the diagonal parking in front of the building which would slow the traffic down. • Noted the pedestrian paseo and the up lighting of the wall. Suggested using chain material like a curtain instead of live panels to animate the paseo. Mr. Shaer stated it would be a maintenance and sustainability issue. • Wanted to see at the next meeting information on lighting. • Liked the perspective at the top with the green at the top and the softening of the edge. • Wanted a plant palette for the top of the structure and how it relates. Wanted real soil used and not light weight soil. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for April 20, 2016 Page 12 of 15 • A little concerned with the walkway between the parking structure and the residences where it tapers. • Noted it was a missed opportunity to move the fountain off to the side on the long alley between the parking structure and apartment building. Suggested putting a sculpture on it. Mr. Jones stated it was set back because it was a fire lane. • Thought on the east corner when the sticks march around the corner that it became a little gimmicky. Thought the screens were doing one thing and the sticks doing another and that they could interact. • Wanted to know if there was a way to illuminate the interior from the floor up and use the ceilings as a light reflector. • Concerned with the planting around the top. Mr. Sevy explained that the planter boxes would be placed inside the structure of the garage making them bigger and more substantial. For Preliminary Review only — no action required. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for April 20, 2016 Page 13 of 15 (7) DRC No. 4846 -16 City Plaza Hotel (Orange Collection) • The applicant proposes to construct a 6 -story 165 -room hotel with surface parking. • 1 City Boulevard West • Staff Contact: Robert Garcia, 714 - 744 -7231, rgarcia @cityoforange.org • DRC Action: Preliminary Review Comments made by the applicant regarding City Plaza Hotel: • Mr. Shaer said the most design changes were made to this building and that the footprint shifted. • Mr. Shaer said the inspiration for this building was from Minoru Yamasaki. Chair Fox opened the item to the Committee for discussion. The DRC commented on the following: Building • Troubled where the entry element meets the ground and questioned if it needed to be centered. Would like the vertical element to come to the ground and not have the whole facade covered but having a half or a third of it exposed making a stronger ground statement. • Did not mind the canopy but the columns were the problem. • Suggested that instead of a horizontal canopy supported by heavy columns, make it totally different with columns flying upward with fewer and smaller columns. • Concerned that the vertical element over the entrance was very transparent, wanted to know what was behind that, and concerned with people pulling their shades. • Wanted to know if they would have trouble with the sign projecting above the roofline. • Suggested the vertical brick joints be flush and the horizontal joints raked. • Wanted the landscaping plant palette to be minimized. • Questioned if there were marble panels along the front facade elevation. Mr. Sevy said yes. • Suggested carrying stone between the panels that would relate to a strong base. Mr. Shaer summarized the DRC comments for all 4 projects: • Wanted more work on the parking structure on Chapman regarding treatment of the corners and pushing back the middle element on Chapman. Also the plaza stepping down to zero throughout the building. • Reconsider the diagonal balconies and roofline on the City Parkway West Apartments. • Liked the color and materials on the City Plaza Apartments. Reconsider the north corner of the garage and if there might be an opportunity for a water feature. • Consider the right trees for the Yamasaki building. • Need to address the porte - cochere for the Hotel. Mr. Sevy wanted the Committee's input on the positioning of the buildings in relation to the property lines. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for April 20, 2016 Page 14 of 15 The Committee wanted materials called out on the elevations with color and material boards, and to work with the City regarding street trees. Mr. Garcia said when the project comes back for final review the Committee would be looking for color boards, material boards, hardscape boards, a lighting plan, roof plans, and actual photographs of the plant materials. The Committee also wanted to see the paving materials, sample of any materials on the building that would have texture, the mesh screen, and the green panels. For Preliminary Review only — no action required. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for April 20, 2016 Page 15 of 15 ADJOURNMENT: Committee Member McCormack made a motion to adjourn to the next Design Review Committee meeting on Wednesday, May 4, 2016 at 5:00 p.m. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Anne McDermott, and Craig Wheeler NOES: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. Meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.