2017-05-03 DRC Final Minutes 1 CITY OF ORANGE
2 DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
3 MINUTES - FINAL
4 May 3, 2017
5 Committee Members Present: Robert Imboden—Chair
6 Tim McCormack
� Carol Fox
g Anne McDermott
9
10 Staff in Attendance: Bill Crouch, CDD Director
11 Anna Pehoushek, Asst. CDD Directar
12 Robert Garcia, Senior Planner
13 Marissa Moshier, Historic Preservation Planner
14 Vidal Marquez, Assistant Planner
15 Anne Fox, Contract Planner
16 Carly Mallon, Recording Secretary
17
1 g Administrative Session—5:00
19
20 Chair Imboden opened the Administrative Session at 5:06 p.m.
21
22 Chair Imboden inquired if there was any Policy or Procedural information. Robert Garcia, Senior
23 Planner, indicated there was no Policy or Procedural information.
24
25 Committee Members reviewed the Design Review Committee minutes for Apri15,2017 and April 19,
26 2017.
27
28 Committee Member Fox made a motion to close the Administrative Session of the Design Review
29 Committee meeting.
30
31 SECOND: Tim McCormack
32 AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, and Anne McDermott
33 NOES: None
34 ABSENT: None
35
36 MOTION CARRIED.
37
38 Administrative Session adjourned at 5:41 p.m.
39
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for May 3, 2017
Page 2 of 10
1 Regular Session—5:42 p.m.
2
3 ROLL CALL:
4
5 All Committee Members were present.
6
7 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:
8
9 Opportunity for members of the public to address the Design Review Committee on matters not listed
10 on the Agenda.
11
12 There were no speakers.
13
14 CONSENT ITEMS:
15
16 (1) APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Apri15,2017
17
18 Committee Member McDermott made a motion to approve the minutes from the Design Review
19 Committee meeting of April 5, 2017 as emended during the discussion at the Administrative Session.
20
21 SECOND: Tim McCormack
22 AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, and Anne McDermott
23 NOES: None
24 ABSENT: None
25 ABSTAIN: None
26
27 (2) APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Apri119,2017
28
29 Committee Member McDermott made a motion to approve the minutes from the Design Review
30 Committee meeting of April 5, 2017 as emended during the discussion at the Administrative Session.
31
32 SECOND: Carol Fox
33 AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, and Anne McDermott
34 NOES: None
35 ABSENT: None
36 ABSTAIN: Tim McCormack
37
38 MOTION CARRIED.
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for May 3, 2017
Page 3 of 10
1 AGENDA ITEMS
2
3 Continued Items:
4
5 (3) DRC No. 4905-17 Tilted Kilt Restaurant
6
7 • A proposal to install a 1,104 sq. ft. louvered patio cover for an existing patio area at the Tilted
8 Kilt restaurant
9 • 1625 W. Katella Avenue
10 • Staff Contact: Vidal F. Marquez, 714-744-7214, vmarquez@cityoforange.org
11 • DRC Action: Final Determination
12
13
14 Vidal Marquez, Assistant Planner, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report.
15
16 The applicant who was present for this project was Jim Dinsmore.
17
18 Public Comments:
19
20 Chair Imboden opened the item to the Public for comments. There were none.
21
22 Chair Imboden opened the item to the Committee for discussion.
23
24 The DRC had the following comments:
25 • Clarification was requested on the picture rendering provided because it appeared that the jog
26 between the two levels didn't align with a column.
27 • The Committee was in favor of removing the three corbels that were not aligned with beams
28 in the mid-span while keeping the corbels on the ends.
29 • Although the Committee didn't object that the rhythm of the beams was different than the
30 louvers, it was requested that the difference not be accentuated.
31 • Expressed concern with how the posts were hitting the ground and what was being done with
32 that. Furthermore, asked for clarification that the beams would sit on top of the aluminum
33 posts while still being able to be tight enough with no visible bolts or screws.
34 • Requested clarification as to whether the lighting was supposed to be recessed and expressed
35 the necessity for that to be included in the specifications.
36 • Noted that the columns were aligned with stone pilasters which were a wider span than the
3 7 louvers.
38 • Requested clarification as to whether the column would be under the beam as the pictures
39 appeared to show two different things.
40 • Noted that the staff report gave project description information that was not in the submittal,
41 such as dimensions and colors.
42
43 Committee Member Fox made a motion to approve DRC No. 4905-17, Tilted Kilt Restaurant, based
44 on the findings and conditions listed in the Staff Report, and with the additional conditions:
45
46 1. That the dual post scheme is the approved scheme.
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for May 3,2017
Page 4 of 10
1 2. That the corbels facing Katella should be removed except for at the ends of the system,
2 including the transition between the two levels.
3 3. Confirmation that the lights built into the canopy are recessed.
4 4. The bullet points on page two of the staff report that describe the height and colors of the
5 project are approved and will be included on the plans.
6
7
8 SECOND: Tim McCormack
9 AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack and Anne McDermott
10 NOES: None
11 ABSENT: None
12 MOTION CARRIED.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for May 3, 2017
Page 5 of 10
1
2 New Agenda Items:
3
4 (4) DRC No. 4864-16—999 Town & Country Mixed Use
5 • A proposal to develop a horizontal mixed-use development project by constructing a new five-
6 story residential apartment building surrounding a six-level parking structure,as well as a new
7 five-level parking structure to serve an existing office building, on an existing six-acre project
8 site.
9 • 999 Town and Country Road
10 • Staff Contact: Anne Fox, 714-744-7220, afox@cityoforange.org
11 • DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission
12
13
14 Anne Fox, Contract Planner, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report.
15
16 The applicants who were present for this project were Nick Marcos, along with members of his design
17 team, Ryan Dierking, RC Alley, and David Ho.
18
19 Public Comments:
20
21 Chair Imboden opened the item to the Public for comments. There were none.
22
23 Chair Imboden opened the item to the Committee for discussion.
24
25 The DRC had the following comments:
26 • Thought the design of the fire lane between the buildings was done well creating enough
27 space to include landscaping, enhanced paving and seating areas, and it did not feel like a fire
28 lane, but aspects of it also seemed divorced from the project.
29 • The project should have well animated lit corridors with the anticipation that people would
30 use a variety of exit points from the buildings to go to and from the parking structures.
31 • Would suggest more glass or consideration of the view towards the north end of the fire lane
32 corridor to add visual interest and make it feel safer at night.
33 • Noted that there was no direct access points from the internal corridors of the apartment
34 building to the barbeque areas and therefore they were not likely be used.
35 • Wanted clarification as to where the horizontal siding was located, requested clarification on
36 the dimensions of the two lap sidings, and how the edges of the towers would be finished.
37 • Thought that the overall concept of not having the apartment building emulate the office
38 building style was appropriate design solution.
39 • With regard to the apartment building fa�ades that have private balconies/decks, the
40 Committee requested clarification and details to show whether they were pronounced and, in
41 particular, how much relief there was on the south fa�ade. They wanted to know if the edges
42 of the decks had horizontal bands attached.
43 • Although the evolution of the design of the freeway side of the apartment building was
44 improved from the prelim review, the feeling created with the random lines on that elevation
45 was probably unnecessary and removing it would help to unify the building's appearance.
46 • Expressed concern about the symmetry of the screen or sculptural pieces and needed
47 clarification as to what material was being used for the screens and what material was filling
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for May 3,2017
Page 6 of 10
1 the void spaces. The Committee requested more information on the materials and colors
2 being used.
3 • The building was still too busy, and could use some simplification to the lines, materials,
4 textures. There was a radical difference from one exterior fa�ade to the other wrapping
5 around the building; so much so that it created the feeling that they were isolated. The
( Committee felt that there was an overall feeling of too many ideas going on that try to make
� the apartment building so different from the office building. There needed to be some form of
8 consistency.
g • Requested specific dimensions of the jogs in the wall planes. Noted that the elevations
10 appeared to represent considerable depth and shadow, but that the floor plans and building
11 edges on site plan do not reflect such elements.
12 • The amount of bright color accents came off a bit fussy and the Committee believed they
13 seemed sort of arbitrary on the exterior and should be scratched altogether, particularly after
14 learning that they were flush with the siding.
15 • Suggested that any Committee action to recommend approval to the Planning Commission
16 should include a condition to require a more detailed lighting plan be reviewed by the
17 Committee at a subsequent meeting for enhanced lighting prior to building permit issuance.
1 g Also, suggested picking fixtures that look contemparary and"disappear" during the day.
19 • To gain a better understanding for the layout of the site plan and buildings, the Committee
2p requested that the architect describe "a day in the life" of someone living in an apartment
21 unit, someone that was a visitor to either the office or the apartment building, as well as an
22 individual working in the office building through a variety of scenarios to determine if the
23 design had given consideration to the actual users of the buildings and amenities.
24 • Inquired whether the parking spaces within the apartment building were assigned.
25 • The Committee wanted to clarify that the apartment building residents would be allowed pets
2C and liked the idea of having a dog park amenity on site.
2� . The landscape choices could be stronger. Noted that the applicant needs to create nuances
28 that make the landscape more inviting. The tree choices and placement should be
29 intentionally assigned to serve to help the way-finding for visitors to the site.
30 • Committee was concerned about the double driveway entrances to the project being so close
31 together and that there needed to be a way to better emphasize one as the primary and one as
32 the secondary entrance/exit. The entrances appeared equal to the Committee and it was
33 suggested taking another look at the way the palm trees were being used to better define the
34 entries.
35 • Thought that the shrub palette consisted of only small, very low height species suggested
36 revisiting the landscape along the public edges of the project to create a visual sequence and
3'7 variation of height.
38 • Noted the need to tie new and existing structures in the project and understood that there
39 were differences between the buildings but perhaps the differences were not different
40 enough.
41 • Wanted to know what amenities were included for the future residents and, of those,what
42 would be shared between the employees of the office and the residents of the apartments.
43 • Noted that there were a lot of long, axial views making what is designed at the end of these
44 views to enhance linear visibility incredibly important. Committee noted that giving greater
45 emphasis to these views would aid in the asymmetrical balance which was not quite achieved
46 with the present design.
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for May 3, 2017
Page 7 of 10
1 . Did not think the site plan was refined enough, was designed from the top down, and the
2 applicant needed to think about the three dimensional characteristics.
3 • Discussed the fact that there was a dominant palm tree fa�ade created in front of the office
4 building,but there were also palm trees at what should be the secondary driveway which
5 creates confusion. There needs to be rigid visual cues with either the landscape or
( architecture to draw people into the corresponding spaces so they know where to go and feel
� more welcome.
g . The renderings did not follow the floor plans for the offsets or vice versa.
9 • The Committee wanted to avoid making it look like everything was built around the existing
10 office building.
11 • The Committee requested clarification as to the color of the existing office building because
12 it was being shown as bright white in all of the elevations, but it was not that color. If there
13 are no changes to it,then it needed to be represented in the renderings in a truer color.
14 • Expressed concern that the renderings showed so much white on the new apartment building
15 and there was concern as to whether the color and materials were compatible with the
16 existing office building.
1� . The new apartment building seemed to have a certain flatness to it that made it look very
1 g thin, almost like cardboard, in contrast to the existing office building.
19
20 Committee Member Fox made a motion to continue DRC No. 4864-16, 999 Town& Country Mixed
21 Use, based on the findings and conditions listed in the Staff Report.
22
23 SECOND: Anne McDermott
24 AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack and Anne McDermott
25 NOES: None
26 ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED.
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for May 3, 2017
Page 8 of 10
1 (5) DRC No. 4906-17—10 Plaza Square
2
3 • A proposal to remodel the exterior of a commercial building in the Plaza far a combination of
4 restaurant, retail, and office uses. The building is a non-contributor to the Old Towne Historic
5 District.
6 • 10 Plaza Square, Plaza Historic District
7 • Staff Contact: Marissa Moshier, 714-744-7243, mmoshier@cityofarange.org
8 • DRC Action: Preliminary Review
9
10
ll Marissa Moshier,Historic Preservation Planner,presented a project overview consistent with the Staff
12 Report.
13
14 The applicants who were present for this project were Dean Kim, Catherine Gleason, Victor Corona,
15 and Michael Lawery.
16
17 Public Comments:
18
19 Chair Imboden opened the item to the Public for comments.
20
21 Jeff Frankel, Old Towne Preservation Association, said that he was surprised that in the 1970s the
22 building was wiped clean of all historical defining features, noting that it is now essentially a blank
23 slate. His main concern was that the building would look too contemporary but the proposed plan
24 actually looks very similar to the 1907 store front photo. Frankel wanted to ensure that the plan was
25 in line with other historical store fronts, but overall was in favor of the proposed project.
26
27 Chair Imboden opened the item to the Committee for discussion.
28
29 The DRC had the following comments:
30 • Enjoyed that the histaric photos were used as precedent, believed the project to be a great
31 improvement to the existing condition, and said it will help balance the Plaza with more
32 permeability at the pedestrian level.
33 • Recommended that the applicant should make the larger building at the corner and the
34 smaller building on Chapman Avenue more distinct from each other.
35 • Noted that although it seems unusual that the windows extend up to the stringcourse in the
36 new storefronts that was the condition in the historic photographs so it seemed appropriate.
3'7 • The Committee noted that they were originally concerned about the windows not stacking
3g between the first and second floor, but most other buildings on the Plaza and nearby streets
39 do not stack either.
40 • Recommended that the transom area of glass above the storefront could be divided into
41 smaller panes, more like a traditional prismatic glass, if possible.
42 . Would like the applicant to consider angling the storefronts back at the entrances.
43 • Requested clarification about the level of the brick curb at the existing windows,wondering
44 if the interior surface finish was the same as the sidewalk. The applicant indicated that the
45 interior floor and the sidewalk were at approximately the same level.
46 • Requested a sample of the proposed paving material at the recessed entrances.
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for May 3, 2017
Page 9 of 10
1 . Discussed the finish and color of the new plaster on the ground floor. The applicant stated
2 that the proposal was to match the new ground floor plaster with the existing second floor
3 texture and color. The Committee recommended that the applicant consider a smooth trowel
4 finish or sand finish on the plaster, particularly at the ground floor. Noted that if the applicant
5 wanted the same finish on the top and bottom of the building then they should also be the
6 same color. A different paint color on the proposed material may also be better.
'7 • Told the applicant they may want to consider adding a canopy or awning to the storefronts
g since other buildings nearby included a dark canopy with dark glass underneath and a light
g color on top.
10 • Proposed replacing the clock at the corner with a blade sign.
11 • Asked for clarification about the location of the electrical room door and if a new opening
12 was to be cut for it. The applicant clarified that the door was a new opening on the west,
13 Plaza-facing elevation. The Committee suggested flipping the adjacent storefront so the
14 storefront door was next to the electrical room and increasing the depth of the recessed
15 entrance, so that the electrical room door could be placed on the north elevation inside the
16 recessed entrance. The electrical room door would still be on the exterior but would not be
1'7 facing the Plaza.
1 g . Asked for clarification as to whether the smaller building's cornice is smaller and/or not
19 matching the larger building's roof. The applicant clarified that the cornice is smaller and
20 does not match the large corner building's cornice.
21 • Expressed concern that the detail showed the bulkhead pushed in about three inches from the
22 face of the building. Recommended that the wood panel on the bulkhead should be recessed
23 in the frame rather than projecting.
24
25
26 For preliminary review only—no action required
27
28
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for May 3,2017
Page 10 of 10
1 ADJOURNMENT:
2
3 Committee Member Fox made a motion to adjourn to the next regularly scheduled Design Review
4 Committee meeting on May 17, 2017.
5
6 SECOND: Anne McDermott
7 AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack and Anne McDermott
8 NOES: None
9 ABSENT: None
10 MOTION CARRIED.
11
12
13 Meeting adjourned at 9:24 p.m.
14