Loading...
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.