2018-01-17 DRC Final Minutes CITY OF ORANGE
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
MINUTES - FINAL
January 17, 2018
Committee Members Present: Robert Imboden- Chair
Tim McCormack
Anne McDermott
Mary Anne Skorpanich
Committee Members Absent: Carol Fox
Staff in Attendance: Marissa Moshier, Historic Preservation Planner
Kelly Ribuffo, Associate Planner
Vidal F. Marquez, Assistant Planner
Simonne Fannin, Recording Secretary
Administrative Session—5:00
Chair Imboden opened the Administrative Session at 5:00 p.m.
Marissa Moshier, Historic Preservation Planner stated there was a question at the last Design
Review Committee meeting regarding the Shell station that is under construction at the corner of
Tustin and Collins. Monique Schwartz, the project planner, visited the site and observed that the
construction is per the approved plan.
Kelly Ribuffo stated the shed buildings at the Villa Park Orchards Packinghouse property will be
moved on Friday the 19th. Prep work on the excavation should begin at the end of February or
the beginning of March for the courtyard building.
Committee Member Imboden asked for an update on the property on Cleveland and Kelly Ribuffo
advised that she has not been able to confirm a meeting date with the applicant yet, but will
continue to work on it.
Committee Members reviewed and made minor changes to the December 20,2017 Design Review
Committee minutes.
Committee Member McCormack asked if there's an approved landscape plan for the Shell station
and asked if vines on the east side are intended to be there. Marissa Moshier stated there is an
approved landscape plan. The Committee Members briefly discussed the landscaping on that
property.
� Chair Imboden stated that at the previous meeting they discussed the current format of the DRC
meetings and there was a majority of the members that would like to see meetings conducted in a
more formal format. Tonight's meeting will be a test to have the applicant complete the
presentation from the podium then the Committee can discuss it among themselves. Chair Imboden
will make a list of questions that need to be posed to the applicant then he will ask the applicant to
respond. Once the applicant has responded, the Committee can deliberate and discuss their
decision.
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for January 17, 2018
Page 2 of 8
Committee member Skorpanich stated she contacted the librarian at the Orange Public Library
Local History Collection who found that the address for the Killefer School building is 541 North
Lemon. Marissa Moshier, Historic Preservation Planner, asked if the librarian provided a date
range for that address because the 1950's Sanborn shows it as 540 North Olive. Ms. Moshier will
speak with the librarian about more research on the address.
Chair Imboden disclosed that the applicant for Killefer Square met with him and Ms. Moshier to
discuss the design. The applicant asked if he could have another meeting before the item returns
to the Committee for a recommendation; Chair Imboden recommended that he meet with a
different member of the Committee in order to obtain another opinion. Committee Member
McDermott stated she was going to meet with him the following day.
Committee Member McDermott made a motion to close the Administrative Session of the Design
Review Committee meeting.
SECOND: McCormack
AYES: Imboden, McCormack, McDermott and Skorpanich.
NOES: None
ABSENT: Fox
MOTION CARRIED.
Administrative Session adjourned at 5:23 p.m.
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for January 17, 2018
Page 3 of 8
Regular Session—5:31 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Committee Members Imboden, McDermott, Skorpanich, McCormack were present, Committee
Member Fox absent.
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: DECEMBER 20,2017
Committee Member McDermott made a motion to approve the minutes from the Design Review
Committee meeting of December 20,2017,as emended during the discussion at the Administrative
Session.
SECOND: Skorpanich
AYES: McCormack, Imboden, McDermott and Skorpanich
NOES: None
ABSENT: Fox
MOTION CARRIED.
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for January 17, 20]8
Page 4 of 8
AGENDA ITEMS:
Continued Items: None
New AEenda Items:
(2) DRC NO. 4903-17 MCDONALD'S REMODEL
• A proposal to remodel and construct a 2,210 sq. ft addition to an existing McDonald's drive-
through restaurant.
• 2401 N. Tustin Street
• Staff Contact: Vidal F. Marquez, 714-744-7214, vmarquez@cityoforange.org
• DRC Action: Final Determination
The representatives present for this project were Carlos Madrigal, Construction Manager and
Jessica Steiner, Project Manager.
Vidal Marquez, Assistant Planner presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report.
He noted that the proposal entails some Variances with respect to parking, drive aisle lanes, and
drive aisle width, which would be up to the Planning Commission to make the findings and
determinations.
Committee Member McCormack asked if the DRC will be able to comment on the circulation.
Marissa Moshier, Historic Preservation Planner, stated if it is a question of the effect of circulation
as it pertains to aesthetics, design or landscape, then it is within the purview of the DRC. If it is
solely about parking, circulation, or traffic, then it is a land-use issue which is under the purview _
of the Planning Commission.
Chair Imboden opened the item to the Committee for Discussion.
The DRC provided the following questions and comments:
• The staff report indicates that the project requires a total of 44 on-site trees. The plan shows
18;however the site plan shows 19 trees which only accounts for half of the Code requirement.
There is also an African Sumac tree that should be listed on the plan. Ms. Moshier informed
the Committee that it is reasonable for the DRC to weigh in on how the number of trees affects
the viability and appearance of the landscape, but the specific number is a Code requirement
and will be referred to the Planning Commission.
• The Committee asked how the property, as it currently stands today, compares with the
required standards. Vidal Marquez responded that it does not meet any of the current Codes.
Chair Imboden invited the applicant to present the project.
Mr. Madrigal, representing McDonald's Corporation, explained there will be new technology in
the kitchen, new interior, drive-through, additions for ADA compliance as well as landscape
improvements. They would like approval from the DRC in order to move forward to Planning
Commission.
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes far January 17,2018
Page 5 of 8
Ms. Steiner Project Manager, explained the African Sumac was probably omitted due to Fire
requirements and placement of water lines. It could also be the reason for the discrepancy in the
tree count.
The DRC had the following questions and comments:
• The Committee asked for clarification of what the ADA symbol meant to indicate. A ramp
with grab bars or a sidewalk? Ms. Steiner responded it is a ramp with sidebars.
• The Committee stated the bypass lane in the on-site vehicular circulation in front of the
building seems to be a flawed design and is not used efficiently. Ms. Steiner advised the goal
is to keep people safely re-circulating because if it were closed off, patrons will go back onto
Tustin Avenue and make an unsafe U-turn in order to go back on the site. The idea is to keep
people on-site without having to make a left-handed U-turn on the public thoroughfare. Mr.
Madrigal added it is a one-way circulation for people who go through the drive-through and
park on-site to eat their food.
• The Committee agreed that the miniaturization of landscaping is symptomatic of the site
planning issue.
• The Committee was concerned about the Code requirement of 44 trees and thought it would
be difficult to reconcile because the project is providing fewer than half of the required trees.
They asked what drives the requirement for the number of trees. Mr. Marquez responded that
staff and the applicant met with the Community Services Landscape Reviewer who believed
there was a balanced amount of trees. There is also a calculation in the Code that is used to
determine the number of trees; it is driven by the site boundary lines, the building size, and
parking measurements.
• The Committee asked what the double hash marks mean on the northern part of the plans on
page 2.
• The Committee asked if there is ADA access signage on the sidewalk leading up to the front
door.
• The Committee asked what plant species are going to be planted in the modular wetlands.
• The Committee was concerned because the deficiencies in the landscaping were pointed out at
the meeting in April and the deficiency was still there. A suggestion had been made at that
meeting to look into providing outdoor dining in lieu of the significant addition in order to
mitigate some of the landscaping deficiencies.
Chair Imboden asked the applicant to respond to the landscape deficiencies in regard to their
impact on how much of it is created by the proposed design. The number of trees is a requirement
of the City; therefore the DRC would like justification as to why it shouldn't be upheld for this
project. DRC would also like clarification on the rear easement and the hash marks on the site
plan in the northwest corner of the property. He asked for clarification on the ADA signage
because there seems to be discrepancy on the plan. Also, what species of trees will be placed in
the modular wetlands area and are they the appropriate species for that location.
Ms. Steiner responded that the trees in the wetlands were coordinated between the Landscape
Architect, Planning, Engineering and their Civil Engineer and they found no conflict in terms of
root spread.
They conducted extensive research with every jurisdiction that could possibly have ownership of
the easement that is on the east side of the site. No one has any record of why it is there, but no
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for January 17, 2018
Page 6 of 8
one has the authority to help them have it removed. It is an access easement that continues north
to the next street. It goes right up to their property line and has healthy landscaping;therefore they
will leave it alone. Their legal department has advised them not to encroach on it because it is an
easement.
Ms. Steiner explained the easement at the northwest corner of the site is a reciprocal ingress/egress
access with Big 5. They tried to get it removed; however Big 5 declined to change it.
Ms. Steiner stated there is an ADA symbol on the front elevation.
Mr. Madrigal stated the franchise has not had good experiences with patio seating because nobody
wants to use it if it is too hot in the summer or it if it is raining. Even though the building is going
to be larger,there will not be a large increase in the customer seats because the expansion is being
used to optimize the kitchen space and to include all the ADA requirements.
Chair Imboden asked if they are currently parking in the easement. Mr. Madrigal responded yes
they do. The parking spaces were striped sometime in the past and are not compliant with City
Code.
The Committee asked if they are required to have two ingress and two egress locations and does
the Code allow for narrower width. Marissa Moshier responded that there is a minimum distance
between aprons; however, the Traffic Division reviewed the plans and had no comments on the
existing driveway approaches. If there are any deviations on widths of the driveways or distances
between them, the Public Works would have to review the plans.
Mr. Madrigal added that driveways need to be large enough for the delivery trucks.
The Committee agreed with the following:
• More of the site should be devoted to landscaping.
• The Committee feels that the concerns related to landscaping they raised at the last hearing are
still very present and they are not convinced that enough effort has been taken on the part of
the applicant to address the concerns.
• The easement on the east has not been clearly addressed.
• The need for a second driveway has not been clearly demonstrated.
• The Committee stated the tree count required by the landscaping requirements are driven by
the lot dimensions, as well as the building size, meaning if the building gets bigger it needs to
be mitigated with landscaping.
I • The DRC cannot make a finding that the project meets applicable design standards.
• The Committee agreed to ask the applicant to take another look at the project and reconsider
ways to improve on the deficiencies.
• The Committee agreed the architecture is well done, but the overall balance of hardscape to
landscape is out of proportion.
• There appears to be enough trees on the north and south edges; the East and West are the
problematic areas.
• The Committee agreed that one of the biggest issues is the drive aisle in front of the building
and questions the necessity of three drive accesses onto Tustin and all three of them being two-
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for January 17, 2018
Page 7 of 8
way. It seems like an excessive amount of paving that is costing a lot of landscaping. If the
drive aisle goes away larger trees could be planted in that area.
• One of the Committee Members asked if a green roof would help with the landscaping
requirements. Ms. Steiner stated they have a lot of equipment on the roo£ Marissa Moshier
explained that the size of the planters meets the Code;the number of trees does not meet Code.
Chair Imboden stated the DRC has the following options:
• The DRC can move to a vote and can forward to the Planning Commission without a
recommendation from the DRC.
• The DRC move for continuance.
It was noted that the staff report states staff was asking the DRC for a recommendation to the
Planning Commission; however, the agenda states it is asking for final determination. Marissa
Moshier clarified that the staff report is correct; it is a Recommendation to the Planning
Commission and because staff report was published with the correct information,they can proceed
with their motion.
Mr. Madrigal agreed to continue the item in order to work on the landscape plan with the other
Departments in the City.
Chair Imboden stated the City has minimum standards and requirements that all applicants need
to follow and the plans do not reflect the comments that were made in the previous meeting. He
advised the applicant to tap into the previous meeting minutes because the same issues were
brought up this evening.
Committee member Skorpanich made a motion to continue DRC 4903-17 McDonald's Restaurant
to the next meeting.
SECOND: McDermott
AYES: McCormack, Imboden, McDermott and Skorpanich
NOES: None
ABSENT: Fox
MOTION CARRIED.
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for January 17, 2018
Page 8 of 8
ADJOURNMENT:
Committee Member Skorpanich made a motion to adjourn to the next Design Review Committee
meeting on Wednesday, February 7, 2018 at 5:00 p.m.
SECOND: McDermott
AYES: McCormack, Imboden, McDermott, and Skorpanich
NOES: None
ABSENT: Fox
MOTION CARRIED.
Meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m.