Loading...
2018-02-21 DRC Final Minutes 1 CITY OF ORANGE 2 DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE 3 MINUTES—FINAL 4 February 21, 2018 5 6 Committee Members Present: Tim McCormack—Chair 7 Anne McDermott 8 Robert Imboden 9 Carol Fox 10 11 Committee Members Absent: Mary Anne Skorpanich 12 13 Staff in Attendance: Marissa Moshier, Historic Preservation Planner 14 Robert Garcia, Senior Planner 15 Vidal Marquez, Associate Planner 16 Simonne Fannin, Recording Secretary 17 18 Administrative Session —5:00 19 20 1. Chair McCormack opened the Administrative Session at 5:00 p.m. and inquired about the 21 Policy/Procedural Information. 22 23 Marissa Moshier, Historic Preservation Planner stated item number four in the administrative 24 session is not correct as the Chair and Vice Chair were elected at the previous meeting. 25 26 She provided an update on the Eichler homes community meeting that occurred on February 20. 27 28 Committee Member Fox made a motion to close the Administrative Session of the Design Review 29 Committee meeting. 30 31 SECOND: McDermott 32 AYES: Imboden, McDermott, McCormack, Fox 33 NOES: None 34 ABSENT: Skorpanich 35 MOTION CARRIED. 36 37 Administrative Session adjourned at 5:05 p.m. 38 City of Orange—Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes far February 21,2018 Page 2 of 11 1 Regular Session —5:31 p.m. 2 3 ROLL CALL: 4 5 Committee Members Imboden, McDermott, McCormack, and Fox were present. 6 Committee Member Skorpanich was absent. 7 8 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: 9 10 Opportunity far Members of the public to address the Design Review Committee on matters not 11 listed on the Agenda. 12 13 There were no speakers. 14 15 CONSENT ITEMS: 16 (1) APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None 17 City of Orange—Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for February 21, 2018 Page 3 of 11 1 AGENDA ITEMS: 2 3 Continued Items: 4 5 (2) DRC NO. 4836-15—ORANGE ART OF DENTISTRY 6 7 • A proposal to demolish an existing 2,000 sq. ft. building and site improvements to construct 8 a new 2,565 sq. ft. dental office building and related site improvements. 9 • 2006 W. Chapman Avenue 10 • Staff Contact: Robert Garcia, (714) 744-7231, �rcia ,citvoforan�g ll • DRC Action: Recommendation to Zoning Administrator 12 13 14 Robert Garcia, Senior Planner provided an explanation of the project consistent with the staff report. 15 This item had been before the Design Review Committee on two separate occasions, and at both of 16 those meetings, the Committee had several concerns and recommendations. 17 18 Chair McCormack asked the applicant if he had any comments or concerns and the applicant stated 19 he did not at this time. 20 21 Chairman McCormack opened the public comment portion of the meeting; seeing no one approach he 22 closed the public comment portion and brought it back to the Committee. 23 24 The Committee had the following questions and comments: 25 • Whether the number of trees had increased or decreased. 26 • If the number of parking spaces remained the same. 27 • The light standards are randomly placed. The photometric does not indicate foot candles. The 28 Committee had asked for it to be changed in the previous meeting because there was conflict 29 with the light fixtures on the wall. 30 • The image that is shown on the drawing on Sheet EP sheet is very different from what's drawn 31 in the perspective renderings. It was not clear which proportions would dictate. 32 • The Committee previously stated that it was peculiar to have the trash enclosure at the front of 33 the site and thought they had given direction to remove the wood trellis which is still shown 34 on the elevation. 35 • The elevation that shows the beams being cantilevered on one side, but not on the other is hard 36 to understand. The traditional detailing is not consistent with the contemporary building 37 architecture. 38 • The reglets which break up the expansive plaster are an improvement, but it is peculiar that 39 they are aligned with the edges of the windows on all the elevations except one. There is no 40 callout specifying material finishes for the reglets or the windows. 41 • The detail sheet still shows a foam cornice which was already removed from the building 42 elevations. 43 • The cut sheet provided for the wall sconces is not legible. 44 • More information is needed on the canopy; detail is needed for the element that appears as a 45 blue slab. Also, the supports are not symmetrical. 46 • The down spouts on the front of the building haven't been revised to address previous 47 comments. City of Orange—Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for February 21, 2018 Page 4 of 11 1 • The parapet over this central portion of the building is even taller than it was before, which 2 makes it out of proportion with the rest of the building. It appears it is there to hide a mechanical 3 unit. 4 • It appears that there's a mechanical room behind two center front windows now. There are also 5 clerestory windows above that and it is unclear what is behind them. 6 • The large volume in the center portion of the building is still unresolved per previous 7 comments. 8 • The tall mass in the middle of the building is not aligned with the center of the drive aisle which 9 takes away from the symmetry of the building; part of the feedback that was previously given 10 was de-emphasize the center because it doesn't line up with the drive aisle. It looks like the 11 drive aisle was done later and wasn't coordinated with the overall plan. 12 • There is a contradiction between what is being presented in the elevation and what shown in a 13 three-dimensional isometric drawing 14 • The plans show side walls extending to the front of the building without stopping at the fa�ade. 15 • The grid layout of reveals does not wrap around corners, so they don't align as they turn the 16 corner and go down the side of the building. 17 • The height of clerestory windows on the side are not aligned with the height clerestory 18 windows on the front; they appear to be poorly placed. 19 • The Committee expressed concern about lack of understanding about how roofs work. For 20 example, there is a roof cricket at the front of the building that serves no purpose. 21 • The purpose of the sign on the trash enclosure is unclear. 22 • The landscape plan has been simplified; but it now seems disjointed as all of the sides are 23 different from each other. There is no unified landscaping theme. 24 • What is called out for the hardscape is stamped concrete. The proposed herringbone pattern is 25 not compatible with a contemporary structure. 26 • Is the parking lot asphalt or concrete? 27 28 Mr. Garcia confirmed that the number of trees and parking spaces remained the same. James Le, 29 applicant, stated this is the third time that they have come before the DRC. Mr. Le also stated it 30 doesn't matter what they do to the plans; when they come back there are always new comments. 31 He asked what his options were. 32 33 Chair McCormack stated that the item could be continued and that the applicant come back once 34 the comments have been addressed or the Committee could vote to approve or deny. The 35 Committee gave him the option to continue the item. 36 37 James Le stated he had gone through each one of the comments and made corrections without 38 success. 39 40 Committee Members disagreed that the comments had been addressed and cited examples. The 41 minutes were responded to;however most of the things that were brought up tonight have not been 42 achieved and the Committee still had the same comments. There were a lot of discrepancies where 43 things were done on one plan sheet but not on others; there is a lack of comfort with the 44 inconsistency of the documents. It needs to be a cohesive set of plans in order for the building to 45 be built correctly. 46 47 City of Orange—Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for February 21, 2018 Page 5 of 11 1 2 DRC requested clarification of review process. 3 4 Ms. Moshier explained that the project would go to the Zoning Administrator for the review on 5 the Administrative Adjustment with the DRC's determination. The applicant would then have the 6 option to appeal to the Planning Commission. 7 8 The applicant asked if they could take a recess to speak with staff before they make a decision. 9 10 Chair McCormack indicated the applicant needed to make a decision tonight because the agenda 11 item had been opened and needed to be closed with a vote. 12 13 Committee Members stated that there was an overarching problem of basic design. This is being 14 built from scratch and the DRC was struggling to come up with a coherent design; there are rigid 15 forms and symmetry that applicant are competing with the function of the building making it seem 16 arbitrary. The building is disproportionate, illogical and lacking character or style. It doesn't meet 17 community standards. 18 19 The applicant stated he feels it was just a matter of opinion when it comes to aesthetics. He asked 20 the Committee to take a vote and he would appeal it to the Planning Commission. 21 22 Committee Member Fox made a motion to recommend denial of the project to the Zoning 23 Administrator based on the fact that findings cannot be made for a coherent aesthetic design; that 24 there are numerous elements of the project that don't correlate between what's happening inside 25 and outside; many of the items that have been recommended over the past two hearings have not 26 been adequately addressed in spite of the guidance that was given. 27 28 SECOND: McDermott 29 AYES: None 30 NOES: Imboden, McDermott, McCormack, Fox 31 ABSENT: Skorpanich 32 MOTION CARRIED. 33 34 City of Orange—Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for February 21, 2018 Page 6 of 11 J� (3) DRC NO. 4903-17—MCDONALD'S REMODEL 3 • A proposal to remodel and construct a 2,210 sq. ft. addition to an existing McDonald's 4 drive-through restaurant. 5 • 2401 N. Tustin Street 6 • Staff Contact: Vidal F. Marquez, 714-744-7214, vmarquez(a�cit. o�ange.org 7 • DRC Action: Recommendation to Planning Commission 8 9 10 Vidal Marquez, Assistant Planner provided an explanation of the project consistent with the staff 11 report, and highlighted changes to the proposed tree planting on site. 12 13 Originally the staff calculated 44 required trees for the project,but due to the change in orientation 14 of the northern parking lot and the code-required formula for determining trees, the requirement 15 was reduced to 42. The applicant had modified the proposal to add four additional trees for a total 16 of 23, a 46% deficiency. Staff could support a deviation from the standards due to the site 17 limitations from the three easements and the proposed design maximizing tree planting in all 18 required landscape areas. 19 20 The DRC previously suggested eliminating a bypass lane in front of the building or reducing the 21 middle driveway entrance to increase the landscape; even if this modification were to occur the 22 overall project would still not meet the requirement. The applicant had proposed to add an 23 additional tree in the front planter area which would frame the ADA ramp in the front of the 24 building. 25 26 Chair McCormack asked if the applicant wanted to add anything. 27 28 The applicant's representative, Carlos Madrigal, McDonald's Construction Manager stated the 29 project is the same design as last time, but now had additional trees. 30 31 Committee Members had the following comments and questions: 32 • Committee Member asked if the Tustin Street Design Standards provide justification for 33 approving the project in light of its deficiencies. 34 • Committee Members commented that the addition is only generating two additional trees 35 than what would be required far the existing development. Even without the buildout, the 36 tree count is still deficient. 37 • Committee Members commented that one of the Findings makes note of the unique 38 character of the site; yet only mentions the easement. It is concerning the additional square 39 footage and parking is taking up land that would accommodate additional landscaped area. 40 • There is also concern with need of having three points of access on the property. 41 • Committee Members acknowledge that if area of the front by-pass lane was eliminated, 42 there still wouldn't be room for more trees to meet the requirement. 43 44 Committee Member Imboden found it difficult to make the Findings when the project is deficient 45 and there is no significant effort on the part of the applicant to come closer to City standards. He 46 was not prepared to support the project. 47 City of Orange—Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for February 21, 2018 Page 7 of 11 1 Committee Member McDermott felt that the project is a significant aesthetic improvement to what 2 is currently there in architecture and landscaping. She is comfortable with staff s evaluation of the 3 requirements and their recommendation to approve. 4 5 Committee Member Fox stated she is in support of the project due to the encumbrance of the 6 easements which limits the ability to plant more trees. She agreed with the Committee that the 7 addition creates the tree problem. She felt there was a balance and that the project looked good 8 from the frontage. 9 10 Chair McCormack stated he could not support the project due to safety concerns with the inherent 11 flaw of the design of the by-pass lane in front of the building which causes an internal circulation 12 and safety problem. It also adds more hardscape and less landscape. He could approve the project 13 if some of the drive aisle was eliminated to allow for more trees. He stated the thought process of 14 creating very small unsustainable areas for plant growth was not factored into the design and that 15 the drive-through was a detriment to the site. 16 17 Committee Member Imboden stated for the record, this project does not have to be at the ultimate 18 tree count. The Committee has approved a number of projects that were deficient because it was 19 mitigated. He was concerned about setting a precedent and felt other options were not being 20 explored. 21 22 Mr. Madrigal stated it is was domino effect with other department requirements; Fire Department 23 needs their aisle width for Fire access and Planning needs aisle width for parking standards. The 24 easements restrict them from satisfying the issues the Committee has. 25 26 Community Services staff inember pon Equitz described his recommendation to approve the 27 landscape plan and briefly discussed the bio-retention areas which limit tree plantings. 28 29 Chair McCormack asked the applicant if he wanted to continue the item or receive a vote. 30 31 Mr. Madrigal asked the Committee to take a vote so that the project could go to the Planning 32 Commission. 33 34 Committee Member Imboden added the Planning Commission would look at this as a land-use 35 issue which is not under the discretion of the Design Review Committee. 36 37 Committee Member Fox made a motion to approve Design Review 4903-17, McDonald's 38 Restaurant based often on the findings and conditions in the staff report,with the additional finding 39 that when trees are added to meet the required tree count along the back property in other similar 40 projects, and there is no opportunity here for that to happen. The frontage of the project meets the 41 standards for aesthetics. Aesthetics of the building design as proposed are acceptable. 42 43 SECOND: McDermott 44 AYES: McDermott, Fox 45 NOES: Imboden, McCormack 46 ABSENT: Skorpanich 4� MOTION FAILED. � City of Orange—Design Review Committee � Final Meeting Minutes for February 21, 2018 Page 8 of 11 1 Marissa Moshier, Historic Preservation Planner explained the motion fails; therefore, it is a 2 recommendation of denial to the Planning Commission. 3 4 A recess was taken from 6:48 - 6:56 City of Orange—Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for February 21, 2018 Page 9 of 11 1 New A�enda Items: 2 � (4) DRC NO. 4918-17—SISTERS OF ST. JOSEPH MINISTRY ADDITION 5 • A proposal to construct a 3,874 sq. ft. addition to an existing Ministry Building on the 6 Sisters of St. Joseph campus with associated landscaping and parking lot improvements � • 440 S. Batavia Street g • Staff Contact: Marissa Moshier, 714-744-7243, mmoshier�a cit ofy oran�e.or� 9 • DRC Action: Recommendation to Zoning Administrator 10 11 12 Marissa Moshier, Histoxic Preservation Planner provided an overview of the project consistent 13 with the staff report.The proposed parking for the addition is short by one parking space;therefore, 14 the DRC action is a recommendation to the Zoning Administrator for an Administrative 15 Adjustment. 16 17 Chair McCormack asked if the applicant wanted to add anything to the discussion. 18 19 Ms. Wells, Project Architect and Bill Rabben, landscape architect were present. 20 21 Mara Wells provided a history of the master plan for the property and the intent and goal of their 22 design. She provided an explanation of tufftrack grass pavers, landscaping, material samples and 23 color palettes and where they would be placed. 24 25 Chair McCormack opened the public comment portion of the meeting. Seeing no one there he 26 closed the public comment portion. 27 28 Committee comments: 29 • Committee Members agreed this was an exceptional project. The garden pavilion concept 30 was excellent, and the landscape was compatible and well thought out. 31 • The panel effects would make the project incredibly rich. 32 • The proposed Mexican Feather Grass was noted as being an invasive species and the 33 Committee requested that it be exchanged for a different plant. 34 • Committee Members discussed the proposed TuffTrack grass pavers and the Fire 35 Department requirements for fire access lanes.Ms.Moshier added that the Fire Department 36 approved the Tufftrack grass pavers in this fire lane, but they would require a report every 3'7 five years confirming that it maintained its rating for the Fire apparatus. 3 g • Committee Members discussed the lace pattern and material of the metal panels around the 39 building. Ms. Wells described the Sisters of St. Joseph history of lace-making and the 40 abstract reference intended from the panels. 41 42 Committee Member Fox made a motion to recommend approval to the Zoning Administratar for 43 Design Review 4918-17, Sisters of St. Joseph Ministry Addition based on the findings and 44 conditions in the staff report with an additional condition that the Mexican Feather Grass be 45 replaced by a less invasive species of the same size and character. 46 47 SECOND: McDermott City of Orange—Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for February 21, 2018 Page 10 of 11 1 AYES: McCormack, Imboden, McDermott, Fox 2 NOES: None 3 ABSENT: Skorpanich 4 5 MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange—Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for February 21, 2018 Page 11 of 11 1 ADJOURNMENT: . 2 3 Committee Member McDermott made a motion to adjourn to the next Design Review Committee 4 meeting on Wednesday, March 7, 2018 at 5:00 p.m. 5 6 SECOND: Imboden 7 AYES: McCormack, Imboden, McDermott, Fox 8 NOES: None 9 ABSENT: Skorpanich 10 11 MOTION CARRIED. 12 13 Meeting adjourned at 7:49 p.m.