2017-08-02 DRC Final Minutes 1 CITY OF ORANGE
2 DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
3 MINUTES - FINAL
4 August 2, 2017
5 Committee Members Present: Robert Imboden—Chair
6 Tim McCormack
� Carol Fox
g Anne McDermott
9
10 Staff in Attendance: Anna Pehoushek, Assistant Community Development Director
11 Jennifer Le, Principal Planner
12 Monique Schwartz, Assistant Planner
13 Kelly Ribuffo, Associate Planner
14 Carly Mallon, Recording Secretary
15
16 Administrative Session—5:00
17
; �
18 Chair Imboden opened the Administrative Session at 5:13 p.m.
19
20 Chair Imboden inquired if there was any Policy or Procedural information. Jennifer Le, Principal
21 Planner, indicated there was no Policy or Procedural information.
22
23 Kelly Ribuffo,Associate Planner,informed the committee that the Villa Park Orchards Packing House
24 project had been approved by the Community Development Director, with the inclusion of all
�5 conditions recommended by the Design Review Committee.Notifications were sent out for the Zoning
l6 Administrator meeting and the decision rendered by the Community Development Director.
27
28 The Committee had no minutes to review.
29
30 Committee Member Fox made a motion to close the Administrative Session of the Design Review
31 Committee meeting.
32
33 SECOND: Anne McDermott
34 AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, and Anne McDermott
35 NOES: None
36 ABSENT: None
37
3 g MOTION CARRIED.
39
40 Administrative Session adjourned at 5:30 p.m.
41
42
43
44
45
' 46
47
�
T8
49
50
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for August 2, 2017
Page 2 of 8
1 Regular Session—5:30 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: None
17
18
19
20
21
22
Z3
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
� 43
44
45
� 46
47
48
.�_
�� �
�
i.
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for August 2, 2017
Page 3 of 8
1 AGENDA ITEMS
2
3 Continued Items: None
4
5 New Agenda Items:
6
7 (2) DRC No. 4888-16 Branch West Apartments
8 • A proposal to redevelop an existing commercial light-industrial complex with a 94-unit
9 apartment development with structured parking and related residential amenities on a 1.10 acre
� 10 site. The application will include a development agreement involving the transfer of
11 development rights from a portion of the City water well property adjacent to the subject site.
12 • 1725 W. Katella Avenue
13 • Staff Contact: Anna Pehoushek, (714)744-7228, apehoushek@cityoforange.org
14 • DRC Action: Recommendation to Planning Commission
15
16 Anna Pehoushek, Assistant Community Development Director, presented a project overview
17 consistent with the Staff Report.
18
19 The applicants who were present for this project were Matt Jackson, Irwin Yau, and John Olivier.
20
21 Public Comments:
�2
%3 Chair Imboden opened the item to the Public for comments. There were none.
24
25 Chair Imboden opened the item to the Committee for discussion.
26
27 The DRC had the following comments:
28 • Clarification was requested on whether the glass balconies had framed or unframed glass.
29 • Far the signage, there was a sample of the Parisian rust panel but no sample of the gilded rust
30 panel was provided and the Committee wanted to know what the difference was between the
31 two as the pictures alone did not clarify.
32 • There were different fonts used for various purposes and the Committee questioned what
33 determined the use of the different fonts and how they would read from a distance. The serif
34 font on the parking sign seemed quite thin and the Committee wanted to know what the finish
35 on the "ST" sign was.
36 • For the "State House" sign, the picture presented in the renderings looked different than the
37 description. The Committee wanted to know what"flush and reveal panel"meant as well as if
38 there was a black border around the sign.
39 • The Committee wanted clarification as to which signs were flat sheet versus having a slight
40 profile. All sign descriptions ended with "1/8 inch" and the Committee wanted to know what
41 this was referring to since all the signs appeared to have different thickness in the renderings.
42 • The black edge of the signs might not read well up against the dark brick and could be
I 43 reconsidered.
44 • The changes that were made to the corner of the building as suggested by the Committee at the
45 item's previous review were seen as a successful change and completely adequate to create an
' 46 anchor for the corner.
47 • The Committee had no issues with the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
�. -<�
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for August 2, 2017
Page 4 of 8
1 • The project was proposing vehicular paving and there was concern with the direction of long
2 linear pavers.
3 � Clarification was requested if there was bamboo being used on the east fa�ade.
4 • The pool depth was questioned since it was on top of a parking structure. It was questioned if
5 the planters were raised at the pool and how far the exterior footings were pushed down on the
6 parking structure.
7 • Clarification was requested if there was a wall in section BB on sheet C3 of the renderings.
8 • A stronger consistency could have been applied to the signage.
9 • The Committee discussed lighting and debated if there needed to be a more developed palette
10 that specifically referenced where they were going or if the rendering displayed the locations
„ ,r` 11 well enough.
�' '� 12 • The combination of the long pavers with the direction they traveled might not allow the
13 spirulina plants to be in the exact spots on the renderings due to the plant's retention of water.
14
15 Committee Member Fox made a motion to recommend approval of DRC No. 4888-16 Branch West
16 Apartments, to the Planning Commission based on the findings and conditions listed in the Staff
17 Report, and with the following condition:
18
19 1. The signage return to this Committee prior to the issuance of building permit.
20 SECOND: Anne McDermott
21 AYES: Robert Imboden, Carol Fox, Tim McCormack and Anne McDermott
; .2 NOES: None
�� 23 ABSENT: None
24 MOTION CARRIED.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
i 42
;
: 43
44
i 45
46
�
i.
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for August 2, 2017
Page 5 of 8
1 (3) DRC No. 4914-17 Town and Country Apartments and Townhomes
2 • A proposal to redevelop an office complex with 727 multi-family residential units (653
3 apartments and 74 townhomes).
4 • 702-1078 W. Town and Country Road
5 • Staff Contact: Monique Schwartz, 714-744-7224, mschwartz@cityoforange.org
6 • DRC Action• Preliminary comments _
7
8 Monique Schwartz, Assistant Planner, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report.
9
10 The applicant, Trevor Boucher was present with his design team, including Ed Cadanova, Tobin
11 Symmak, and R.C. Alley.
12
13 Public Comments:
14
15 Chair Imboden opened the item to the Public for comments. There were none.
16
17 Chair Imboden opened the item to the Committee for discussion.
18
19 The DRC had the following comments:
� s���i�,��� � 20 • Staff was asked to describe a"pedestrian-friendly environment".
�, �r� � 21
?2 Building A:
23 • The Committee discussed the locations of the fire lanes and if there will be vehicular access at
24 the paseos.
25 • The leasing office appears significantly pushed back from the main street.
2C • The Site Plan, massing of buildings, and courtyard layout create a dynamic space; however,
27 the west elevation is long, with little dimensional break-up.
2g • The site circulation creates a nice break-up of the building massing.
29 • Building massing and step-down building heights create a nice transition to the nature center
30 adjacent to Santiago Creek.
31 • The landscape edges could be simplified with large blocks of the same plants to allow for the
32 architecture to stand out.
33 • The landscape edges could be more consistent while gathering places can be more articulated.
34 • The longer elevations appear jumpy and disorganized. These elevations should be broken-up,
35 showing more organization.
36 • The paseos offer a tremendous opportunity to create significant open spaces far the residents
3'7 to enjoy.
3 g • The metal fin detailing on the exterior of the building helps create verticality,which makes the
39 project design feel different than the other adjacent developments. These metal pieces
40 articulate a sense of order and organization, as long as there is singular integrity. The
41 Committee did not care for the projecting metal detailing extended over and down, framing
42 the garage entrance.
43 � The west elevation along Lawson Way could use more color so that it appears different than
44 the north elevation along Town and Country Road. The use of the color white creates too
45 much contrast. Decreasing the white paint color may decrease the jumpiness.
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for August 2, 2017
Page 6 of 8
1 • The building design could be improved with editing. Using only form to break-up the fa�ade
2 would be preferred, rather than simultaneously using form, material, and color.
3 • The exterior elevations of Building A have more successful massing and appear less jumpy
4 than Building B.
5 • The burgundy "table legs" overshadow the other architectural features.
6 • The Committee suggested using green screens on the burgundy "table leg" projections to
� reinforce and accentuate the landscaping.
g • Referencing Page A-4.3, Image 2, the Committee suggested creative signage on the metal
9 corner panel/fin. Also,the use of white and rust grid projections ar window panes,and pushed-
10 back wood paneling appears excessive.
11 • The long facade along Lawson Way needs a neutral area(s).
12 • The painted white detailing around the leasing center opening is effective for a mid-block
13 entry.
14 • The Committee inquired about the horizontal wood plank tile and whether it looks like wood
15 from a distance.
16
17 Building B:
1 g • The staccato fa�ade detailing feels more jumpy than Building A.
19 • Referencing Page A-4.6, Images 1 and 2, the Committee indicated that the framing elements
20 around the masses look like thin piping and do not create volume or density like the other
21 projects in the area appear to have.
?2 • Referencing Page A-4.6, Image 3, the Committee indicated that the corner detailing is
23 successful.
24 • The Committee questioned the visual stability of the white pylons that frame the entry way.
25 • The Committee was in favor of the variegated red color and questioned the scale of the planks.
26 • The building could be articulated by including four large focal elements and simplified
� 2� throughout by reducing the overall design, materials and color palette.
28
29 Townhomes:
30 • Although there is a sharp design contrast between the Townhomes and Buildings A and B, the
31 Committee believes it is acceptable because the buildings have complimentary styles.
32 • Buffering in front of the entry doors to the ground floor units is preferred along the Town and
33 Country and Parker Street frontages for privacy and parcel deliveries. This can be
34 accomplished using landscape planters and fencing.
35 • The Committee complimented the massing of the buildings and the color and material palette.
36 • The building elevations show much variation, but more symmetry is needed. Page B3.2 was
3'7 referenced as an example of how the front elevation shows two elements that appear identical,
3 g but are not.
39 • The Committee complimented the flat roof design with shadow lines which is different from
40 Buildings A and B.
' 41 • The Committee referenced Page B-9.1, Views 2 and 3 and commented that the masonry piers
i 42 should be constructed of stacked bond with vertical scoring, instead of running bond.
43 • The garage doors have too many panels and a conventional design.
44 • The pedestrian gate adjacent to the paseo could be pushed back to create a welcoming entrance.
� 45 . More details are needed to show how the four terminus points of the two paseos are treated.
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for August 2, 2017
Page 7 of 8
._.,. .
1 • The Committee did not express any concerns with the pedestrian connectivity on the townhome
2 parcel.
3
4 This item was for preliminary review only- no action required.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
?3
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
, 41
42
� 43
44
45
� 46
47
48
�
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for August 2, 2017
Page 8 of 8
�"� � - � �` 1 ADJOURNMENT:
2
3 Committee Member Fox made a motion to adjourn to the Special Design Review Committee meeting
4 on August 9, 2017.
5
6 SECOND: Tim McCormack
7 AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack and Anne McDermott
8 NOES: None
9 ABSENT: None
10
11 MOTION CARRIED.
12
13 Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
�
�