Loading...
02-04-2009 DRC MinutesCITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES -FINAL February 4, 2009 Committee Members Present: Bill Cathcart Adrienne Gladson Tim McCormack Craig Wheeler Joe Woollett Committee Members Absent: None Staff in Attendance: Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager Anne Fox, Contract Staff Planner Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner Robert Garcia, Associate Planner Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary Administrative Session - 5:00 P.M. The Committee met for an Administrative Session beginning at 5:05 p.m. Chair Wheeler opened the discussion with a review of the Agenda. The Committee Members reviewed the minutes from the January 7, 2009 Design Review Committee Meeting and noted corrections. Planning Manager, Leslie Aranda Roseberry, stated Staff had received a request from the applicant of Agenda Item No. 5, requesting that the item be moved up in the Agenda as the applicant had a flight to catch. Chair Wheeler stated he would ask the members of the audience and the Committee for any objections to that request once the Session was open and if there were no objections it could be moved up in the Agenda. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated several weeks ago Committee Member Cathcart had asked that a discussion regarding the Landscape Standards be Agendized in order to discuss those standards. The Landscape Standards were not very clear when they pertained to non-residential uses or non- residential zones. The standards contained a very specific tree count formula that was in the Code; however, the standards referred to a Code that indicated that the standards were actually a benchmark. Staff had struggled with how to deal with that over time. For example, if 100 trees were required on a site and if only 99 were planted, would the applicant necessitate obtaining a variance or administrative adjustment; or if weighing heavily on the benchmark, the Committee Landscape expert's recommendation such as what had been stated by Committee Member Cathcart several times was that there could not be the required number of trees planted in an area and expect that they would actually grow. The standards had not taken that detail into account. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated that was a preface to what the issues were and she would open the discussion with the Committee's suggestions on those issues. Due to budgetary constraints the City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 4, 2009 Page 2 of 26 City would not be able to move forward immediately with revisions to the Standards; however, it was information that would be used when that opportunity became available. Committee Member Cathcart stated he had worked with the tree formula for a long time and it was tedious. The formula, he explained, was the perimeter of a property in linear feet, the perimeter of the building or buildings, and the length of the parking areas added together and divided by 36 to arrive at the number of required trees. The Landscape Standards had not taken into consideration a situation where the perimeter of the building and the perimeter of the property line were not wide enough to plant a tree. It failed especially in those sites with a zero lot line. When buildings were setback on or close to the property line, without areas for planting it was a problem. He suggested that the formula be revised to include only the property perimeter and the building perimeter of the site that could adequately hold plantings. They had used that method several times and the calculations worked. Committee Member Woollett asked on the space to plant a tree would that depend on the species of tree? Committee Member Cathcart stated that would be correct and the suggested change in the method of arriving at a tree count would at least give them a number that would work most of the time and would be a much better method of arriving at a tree count and allow the Landscape Architect enough of a guideline to find an appropriate tree to plant in the space. The formula needed to be adjusted to arrive at a workable number; currently it was not even close. Committee Member McCormack stated he agreed. On a zero lot line trees could not be planted and removing that area from the calculation would allow the applicant to arrive at a workable number. He felt the current formula worked well in situations when a site had proper setbacks and such. When he dealt with The Block At Orange, he found the current Ordinance could be crafted in a number of different ways, such as planting a block of trees close together in a section of parking lot and to have absolutely no trees in other areas. The intent of the tree count was to provide shade on asphalt. Committee Member Cathcart asked how far away from the building would Committee Member McCormack be comfortable with suggesting? He felt anything from zero to 8' should be ignored, and anything over that would be included in the formula. Committee Member Gladson asked if there were other parts of the formula; such as a percentage of total landscaping that were included in the formula. Should parking lot areas have a specific requirement for the shading element? Committee Member Cathcart stated he believed that there was a standard regarding the number of trees per parking lot spaces. The overall number of trees required on a site was the issue. Committee Member Gladson stated that Committee Members Cathcart and McCormack would agree that just throwing a number of trees on a project would not mean that a project was well landscaped or looked aesthetically better. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 4, 2009 Page 3 of 26 Committee Member McCormack stated that would be getting into design issues, such as what would be the theme of the project. If it was a Lake Forest project there would be 15 times more trees on the project than a project in the City of Orange. It was dependent on the design issues. Committee Member Gladson stated the challenge was not so much with new construction, but with existing or older buildings, such as the BMW Motorcycle applicant that they had reviewed. Committee Member Cathcart stated in attempting to take a landscape design profession and guide it with a formula it lost its creativity and he felt there should be some adjusting for grouping, shade, and a variety of other elements. Committee Member McCormack stated in working with other Cities, he had run into issues, such as on an underground parking structure, if it was not caught in the early stages and the structure was built directly to the property line the applicant was then required to provide wells in the structure for tree planting on the top of it. It was a matter of design and the applicant would need to be cautious of the requirements. Everything would continue to get denser as they arrived towards the year 2020, and trees would need to be protected and how they addressed that would be a real challenge. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated Staff had not been consistent in how they dealt with the issues of landscaping. They had processed variances in some situations and had not on others. In speaking with the Department Director, she had expressed some of the concerns and she had agreed that the applicant needed to utilize the benchmark as their standard, and that was what they were reaching for. If the applicant could not provide good landscaping with those 100 trees or whatever the number was, then they would be required to explain why; such as the property contained a zero lot line, and Staff could then review that to verify if it was reasonable. Those numbers and requirements would be included in the application which the DRC would review and provide recommendations or confirmation that the count the applicant had arrived at was adequate. The landscape would need to be looked at as a whole, currently the standard addressed the number of trees, and she understood that the DRC would want to review the overall landscaping and the type of trees and how they fit into the landscape model. In lieu of being able to make any immediate changes she felt that would be a way to use what was in the Code and in the Standards, and to ensure that the discretion was placed firmly in the hands of the DRC and not at the Staff level. Committee Member McCormack asked if there was a way to link the tree requirement with open space requirements. Many times an application would come in with a zero lot line and a parking lot that had been expanded, which took away from the open space and the areas for tree plantings. He stated he felt that was something which needed to be looked at. In residential work he had seen where an applicant would want to pave their entire yard. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated that could not be done based on a City Standard. Committee Member McCormack stated if an applicant paved over an entire site or added a parking structure they in essence were eliminating the terra firma that would have sustained trees. The reality would be if a proposed project showed that there was not enough space to City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 4, 2009 Page 4 of 26 plant trees, possibly that was a red flag that what the applicant had proposed was not correct and the site possibly had too much hardscape. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated much of that was triggered by the parking requirement. When she looked at a parking lot she understood a tree could be planted and that was what diamonds were used for. There was generally a way in which to include landscaping. Committee Member McCormack stated he had an issue with parking lot diamonds, essentially when a buildable pad was built it was compacted to 95% and when a diamond was installed it created a little pot. There would be no way that roots could get into the soil that had been compacted to 95%. He got around that by using the long linear areas that had not been compacted that would allow plantings to grow, he felt the trees were not able to grow in the diamond planters as there was not enough soil to support the growth. Committee Member Woollett stated it was dependent on where the diamonds were cut, if they were closer to the building it would work. Committee Member McCormack stated it was dependent on the soil which was site specific, and it was his experience that trees planted in diamonds would not grow very well. Committee Member Woollett stated that could be something added to the requirement, how much boring was required, in regards to compacted areas that would need to be used for planting trees. Chair Wheeler stated in the Chili's restaurant parking lot there were diamond areas with trees missing that had either been knocked down or trees that were not doing very well. Committee Member McCormack stated on that site for the 24" box trees they had only dug down 24" into the compacted areas. It was site specific. Committee Member Gladson stated there were good points made and if they could have a sense of the number equation that the landscape architect was attempting to hit, they were restricted to using their creativity and the trees could be placed anywhere just to reach the required numbers which was not good landscape design. She agreed with Ms. Aranda Roseberry's comment about maintaining the benchmark aspect, she loved trees, and she would want a project to attempt to meet the requirement and if design relief was necessary, the DRC could evaluate those cases. Committee Member Cathcart stated he had not liked the adversarial position Landscape Architects were placed in, when attempting to work with the formula, when in reality most of the landscape professionals would want to plant as many trees as possible. Committee Member Woollett stated the developer might not want as many trees. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated it was important to understand the reasoning when an applicant was unable to meet the benchmark. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 4, 2009 Page 5 of 26 Committee Member McCormack stated there was a way to get around not meeting the benchmark, an applicant could use 36", 48" or 60" box trees and he had worked with that ordinance in other Cities. If the number of trees could not be reached than the use of larger trees could be explored. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated the intent of the discussion was to arrive at an agreeable solution to work with the current standards and to allow the DRC the discretion to weigh into the landscape designs that an applicant presented. Committee Member Woollett asked if it was possible to obtain a copy of the soils report on applications? Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated many times an applicant would not have that completed when an item was presented to the DRC. Many times that was completed at a later time. Committee Member McCormack stated generally it was the owner that contracted the geotechnical part of the project and it was not necessarily a piece that the architect would have. Committee Member Cathcart made a motion to adjourn the Administrative Session. Administrative Session adjourned at 5:32 p.m. SECOND: Tim McCormack AYES: Bill Cathcart, Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Joe Woollett, Craig Wheeler NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. Regular Session - 5:30 P.M. ROLL CALL: All Committee Members were present. COMMITTEE REORGANIZATION WITH AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF FEBRUARY 18, 2009: Election of Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson Committee Member Cathcart made a motion to maintain the current organization of members. Chair Wheeler stated traditionally they had changed positions every two years and he had been in the seat of Chair for two years and he would entertain a motion to re-organize. Committee Member Woollett stated he agreed with the Chair, however, he couldn't imagine anyone else doing a better job. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 4, 2009 Page 6 of 26 Committee Member Cathcart withdrew his motion. Committee Member Woollett made a motion to nominate Committee Member McCormack as the new Chairperson. SECOND: Bill Cathcart AYES: Bill Cathcart, Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. Committee Member Woollett made a motion to nominate Committee Member Gladson as the new Vice-Chairperson. SECOND: Bill Cathcart AYES: Bill Cathcart, Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Opportunity for members of the public to address the Design Review Committee on matters not listed on the Agenda. There was none. Chair Wheeler stated there had been a request to move Agenda Item No. 5, Bob's Big Boy Restaurant up in the Agenda. He suggested hearing the continued item first; then at that point if there were no objections, to hear Item No. 5. CONSENT ITEMS: All matters that are announced as Consent Items are considered to be routine by the Design Review Committee and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of said items unless members of the Design Review Committee, staff, or the public request specific items to be removed from the Consent Items for separate action. 1) APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 7, 2009 Committee Member Cathcart made a motion to approve the minutes from the January 7, 2009 Design Review Committee Meeting with corrections and changes as noted. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 4, 2009 Page 7 of 26 SECOND: Adrienne Gladson AYES: Bill Cathcart, Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 4, 2009 Page 8 of 26 AGENDA ITEMS: Continued Items: 2) DRC No. 4283-07 - CARL'S JR. A proposal for a new fast food restaurant. 145 North Tustin Street Staff Contact: Robert Garcia,'714-744-7231, rag rcia(cr~,cit o~forange.org Item Continued from DRC Meeting of September 3, 2008 DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission Associate Planner, Robert Garcia, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Jim Dietze, address on file, stated his firm, Architects of Orange, was the initial architect of record for the initial facelift of the shopping center that the Carl's Jr. would be going into. The facelift was completed approximately 10 years ago. He was very familiar with the project and he had been involved in the initial approval of the master plan that included a fast food or quick serve component. That component had been approved on the master plan in the location that had been initially presented. Due to his knowledge of the site he had been asked by the owner and Carl's Jr. to assist in revising the project and to address the DRC's suggestions. Architects of Orange, Katrina Riddle the architect of record for Carl's Jr., the owner, Craig Jones of Jones Development and the representative for Carl's Jr., Wayne Goding, had put their heads together and reviewed the minutes from the previous hearing of the DRC. Based on those suggestions and comments they attempted to revise the project which included good traffic flow and circulation, adequate parking for all tenants on the site, maintained a good view window from Tustin, mitigated the drive-thru and pick up windows, oriented glass and people spaces to Tustin Street and enhanced the architectural treatments to the building. They had gone through numerous parking configurations and building orientations. The orientation they would be presenting was the only orientation that met all of the above criteria. They worked very hard to arrive at the best possible site plan and a project that was approvable. Applicant, Katrina Riddle, address on file, stated they had re-oriented the building 90 degrees. The front of the building would face Tustin Street. Patrons would be visible to Tustin and the new orientation reduced the profile as seen from Tustin Street. It also improved exposure to the existing shopping center. The visible length of the drive-thru had been shortened with a 36" hedgerow following the drive-thru perimeter which would eliminate headlight glare and create a more visually pleasing space. An eight-car stacking was required. Parking had been optimized. Landscaping around the building had been increased and there were two entrances to the building which were easily accessible. The drive-thru had been oriented away from Tustin with the buffer between Tustin Street and the building being increased. She reviewed the elevation drawings with the Committee and stated there were cornice, brick and color elements added to match the components of the existing shopping center. There were vine trellises added with arched trim detail, rear tower, awning and faux windows along with lush landscape being added City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 4, 2009 Page 9 of 26 to complete the overall aesthetics of the project. She reviewed each of the elevations with the Committee Members and pointed out specific details of each elevation. Mr. Dietze stated the main elevation that now faced Tustin Street was all glass. The dining area was visible from Tustin. The site plan had been narrowed. Public Commen None. Chair Wheeler opened the item for discussion. Committee Member Gladson asked what the change in dimension was? Ms. Riddle stated it was 9'. The building had been elongated to accommodate the drive-thru and buffer from Tustin. Mr. Garcia stated there was roughly 5' from the property line to the drive-thru, the drive lane was 12' wide with an additional 9'. Committee Member Woollett stated that the applicant had made substantial changes and had taken into account the suggestions made by the DRC. He was pleased with the new design. Chair Wheeler stated he felt there was some visual clutter with the menu board area and he felt the second entry was so far away and appeared to be almost a false entry. Ms. Riddle stated she felt pedestrian traffic would utilize the second entry. The menu board would be concealed with a 3' wall and a hedgerow which covered all but a foot of the menu board. Chair Wheeler presented a drawing that he had prepared and reviewed it with the applicants and explained how he had re-oriented the drive-thru and parking areas. He felt it was a better approach from Tustin and allowed for additional landscape areas. Mr. Dietze stated they had attempted several orientations and explained if the drive thru went directly to the entrance as Chair Wheeler had suggested, he stated it would not work from a traffic flow perspective and presented a safety issue. He pointed out areas on the drawings that would create problems. He stated that a different orientation would create problems for other tenants in the center. Committee Member McCormack stated with the entry and drive-thru in the proposed position he felt there would be a lot of clutter with the cars, bus stop and Tustin traffic. In reading from the Staff Report regarding the urban design and good design features of fostering community aesthetics of the Gateway Area, he had questioned whether the current proposal met those requirements. He had not reviewed any failed drawings and he would have hoped that based on the issues presented at the previous presentation he would have wanted to review the alternate orientations and to discuss why they had not worked. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 4, 2009 Page 10 of 26 Ms. Riddle stated the current design met the requirement of an eight-car stacking and alternate orientations had created a loss of parking spaces. Chair Wheeler stated the current proposal appeared to lose just as many parking spaces as an alternate proposal. Mr. Garcia stated there was a loss of 29 parking spaces. Ms. Riddle reviewed the areas that had lost parking spaces on the plans. Mr. Dietze stated from a dimensional standpoint an alternate plan had not fit. There were issues with parking for other tenants in the center. They had a concern from a site standpoint that they had not wanted to block the view to other tenants. Ms. Riddle stated from the bus stop point of view it was a very inviting location from that standpoint with direct access. Committee Member McCormack stated if the proposed restaurant was somewhere else other than the Gateway to Tustin Avenue, he was not stating the design would not work, he was just stating that the design would not work in the area it was being presented in. If he could review a failed plan that proved that an alternate orientation had not worked he might have felt better about the project. There would be a lot of people at the bus stop, people could potentially walk on the asphalt, through the landscaping to the front door and he felt the door should be on the other side. He pointed out the change he was suggesting on the drawings. Mr. Dietze stated the door Committee Member McCormack was referring to was a secondary entrance. Committee Member McCormack stated he felt the design ignored some of the urban design elements and ignored the people who would be waiting for the bus. He felt the applicants had done a great job on the architecture, however, the issue with the circulation on site and pedestrian traffic remained an issue for him. Ms. Dietze stated there was a representative from Carl's Jr. present who could speak to that issue. Committee Member Gladson stated she clearly would want to have the emphasis on Tustin to be strong and she disagreed with Committee Member McCormack regarding the Gateway issue on the site. She felt the corner property, which was not a part of the shopping center of the proposed project, was the Gateway and to make this building be the be all and end all of the center was a bit unfair. The proposed project would not be included in the urban design of the buildings that were south of it. She would prefer to see the building directly on Tustin; however, with the site constraints the applicant was working with they had accomplished obtaining more visibility from the street. There were site constraints that they could not change. She was more comfortable with the project than she had been with the previous submittal. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 4, 2009 Page 11 of 26 Committee Member Cathcart stated he liked the project and he felt the site was restrictive and no matter how the building was twisted and turned there were points on the design that would create conflicts and that could not be resolved and it boiled down to personal taste. Based on the direction that the DRC had presented previously he felt the applicants had come up with a solution that worked. Committee Member Gladson stated in moving the pick up window to the south elevation the project had gained a lot in moving the drive-thru activity away from Tustin and that gave her more comfort with the project. Committee Member Woollett stated one of the concerns was with the reader boards. He asked why the reader boards had been placed in the location presented? Ms. Riddle stated it was an operational placement and she would defer that question to the Carl's Jr. Representative, Wade Goding. Applicant, Wayne Goding, address on file stated the site required an 8 car stacking minimum. The menu board was established to have 3 cars behind, a car at the window, a car in the center and a car ordering. He pointed out where another car could be sitting with a preview board. The operational placement of those boards was based on the time allowed for the kitchen to prep the food, which gave the kitchen a 3-4 minute prep time. The orientation of the menu board and pick up window was based on an operational plan for food preparation and all aspects of those boards and windows were based on the placement and design of the kitchen. Committee Members reviewed the stacking situation for the drive thru and the components and orientation of the kitchen with the applicants. Mr. Goding stated that 65% of the business at Carl's Jr. was through the drive-thru window. Mr. Goding stated they could move the menu board to allow for four cars. Chair Wheeler asked if the filter units would cut down on the amount of landscape that would be provided? Mr. Goding stated no, they would not. It was a filtera system and the hedgerow would be continuous. Committee Member Woollett asked for an explanation on a detail to the entry? Ms. Riddle stated those areas met the requirement for ADA. Mr. Goding stated the Fire Code required, with seating for 50 or more, a separation of so many feet between entrances. Committee Member Woollett made a motion to recommend approval to the Planning Commission of DRC No. 4283-07, Carl's Jr., with the conditions contained in the Staff Report, and with the following additional condition: City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 4, 2009 Page 12 of 26 1. The order board be moved to the 4th car position, rather than the 5th car. SECOND: Adrienne Gladson AYES: Bill Cathcart, Adrienne Gladson, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: Tim McCormack ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 4, 2009 Page 13 of 26 New Agenda Items: 3) DRC No. 4209-07 - CHOC MASTER PLAN A proposal to implement portions of the CHOC Master Plan project including demolition of a 91,000 square foot of medical office building, demolition of a parking structure containing 285 parking stalls, construction of 425,524 square feet of additional hospital space, remodel of 54,250 square feet of hospital space and landscape and hndscape improvements throughout the CHOC campus. 455, 505, 541, and 557 South Main Street and 1201 La Veta Avenue Staff Contact: Anne Fox, 714-744-7229, afox(a~cityoforange.org DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission Committee Member Cathcart recused himself from the presentation as his firm was the landscape architect on the project. Contract Staff Planner, Anne Fox, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Waldo Romero, address on file, thanked the Committee Members for their time. He stated they wanted to respond in a more thorough manner from the concerns that had been presented at the previous meeting. They had numerous presentation materials. For the members of the public present he wanted to reiterate why they were building the hospital. Currently CHOC owned and operated a 200 bed tower, which was not a hospital; they purchased their services from St. Joseph's medical center. Those service included surgery, imaging, diagnostic, laboratory, and emergency services. Patients were currently transported between the two facilities. The goal was to realize CHOC's mission of treating children. CHOC saw approximately 11,000 children per year, those were children that were treated and cared for. Through the St. Joseph's ER department they saw 60,000 children and their mission was to consolidate the services under one infrastructure. In order to achieve that goal the design intent was to create facilities that had technology, patient space, amenities of family space and a facility that met seismic regulation. It was a tall, tall order, not only for current demands but also to 2020. CHOC and its representatives were willing, able and ready to work with the City of Orange to address any concerns. Applicant, Fred Talarico, address on file, stated when they had begun the project several years ago they had met with Staff to outline the number of necessary required approvals. There was a zone change, design reviews, EIR, development agreements and it almost became necessary to obtain one each of every permit that was available through the City. The General Plan stated the site should be a hospital and that was their general goal. He stepped over to the model to discuss the proposed project. The plan had 5 major components, there was the existing 1201 medical building which would be demolished to form the base for a building, the CHOC tower would occur in a location he pointed to on the model. He turned on a light in the model and pointed out that all the lit areas would be new construction and explained what those areas would be. There would be parking structures, one that would accommodate approximately 475 parking City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 4, 2009 Page 14 of 26 spaces. Most of the CHOC employees currently parked at a 9-story structure that was located south of La Veta. Mr. Talarico pointed out a bridge on the project. A former City engineer was working with them to solve the parking problem and suggested building a bridge. He had returned to CHOC to suggest the bridge which actually worked well and was incorporated into the design. The second component would be to convert 40% of the CHOC commerce tower. That tower would become 40% medical and 60% administrative use. There was adequate parking in those areas to accommodate those uses. The final components would be a new medical office building. Staff had asked to know where they anticipated the hospital being at in 20 years and what would the medical office needs be? To meet projected needs that medical building was added. There would be a landscape concept plan, which showed up best in the model, the landscape was integrated with the community on Main and La Veta, but also made a statement that one had arrived at CHOC. The landscape program had a unified theme with a continuity of materials and design. Mr. Talarico stated CHOC held two recent community meetings to view the model. One of the doctors was present, and stated that he was on the Board of Directors when the north tower was built and he asked if there would be enough shell space? Shell space would be open areas that were built for future growth needs. The doctor stated if they had done that, they had done it right. At the previous meeting they were able to take back those suggestions and concerns and look at the project and ask what would it take to make it work? City Staff assisted them in helping to form questions that dealt with everything from would the plants grow in the shaded areas, to long range traffic improvements and had they been included in a long term study? He had not wanted to run through all of the information that had been provided to the Committee. The packets provided answers and a detail of how those questions/concerns had been addressed. They would continue to study the areas that were suggested for zero curbs and they would continue that study and if it was safe they anticipated including that element in their project. He stated they had color and material boards available and also had included color photos and plans for greater detail. The traffic reports were included and in each instance the worst traffic case was applied and based on growth continuing along at the same pace, it was built into what occurred along Pepper, La Veta and Main Streets for parking and such. The long range traffic improvements were looked at. There was a Main Street project that the City was working on and they had met with Public Works to obtain information. In terms of street trees, their landscape architects had looked at the plant palette along the street and how their landscape would work within the context of what was happening on the street. They had attempted to answer all the questions and concerns, they had read the Staff Report and felt it was excellent and spoke well to what his team had been trying to articulate themselves. They were in agreement with the conditions and recommended findings and he wanted to thank Staff and the DRC for the time taken in the project. Public Comment None. Chair Wheeler opened the item for discussion. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 4, 2009 Page 15 of 26 Chair Wheeler stated there was a red tower element, which he pointed out on the model; there was a major red element west of the main tower that appeared to be canted out. The south face and the top were sloped. There was a 2°d red element just west of it that had not sloped out and he suggested that the two red elements be similar in form. Ms. Fox asked for clarification on which building he was referring to? Chair Wheeler stated on the main building there was a form that appeared as a tilted rectangular form; however, the 2nd tower had not appeared to have the same form. He asked where the heliport would be located as it had not been a part of the model? Mr. Romero stated it was an oversight. Applicant, Michael Swain, address on file, stated the tower which he pointed to on the model contained an elevator that would go to the roof top to accommodate the heliport access. Chair Wheeler stated the big item that troubled him and he had not thought about it at the last meeting. He was worried that there was a drive through under the building and he saw it as a horrible terrorist opportunity. Someone could drive under that with a truck full of explosives and do a considerable amount of damage to the City and he asked if the applicants had considered that? Mr. Romero stated not in that context, they had addressed the seismic elements. Mr. Swain stated there would be a water element through that entry area which would help in the event of fire and the seismic elements ensured that the building was structurally sound. They had not considered the issue that Chair Wheeler had presented. Chair Wheeler stated so far the attacks had been on Federal buildings, Trade Centers and office buildings, and a hospital would be a terrible target. If there could have been that much damage with fertilizer and fuel in Oklahoma City with a truck parked outside the building, just imagine what could be done under five stories with kids. Mr. Talarico stated it was a frightening statement. The hospital itself had done several things to prepare for disasters in the area, from decontamination to emergency services, triage and everything that was set for it. Mr. Romero stated the hospital was a depository for medical supplies on behalf of the County. Those supplies were not stored near the building for the reason that if something happened to their primary site the supplies would still be available. Committee Member McCormack stated in looking at cars that were heavier or a vehicle that carried more weight, could there be anything devised that could sense the weight on Pepper? He was aware that there was a mechanism that would pop bollards out of the ground to stop a car; it was used at the Federal Court Building in Santa Ana. It was something to consider. Chair Wheeler stated it was something to think about. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 4, 2009 Page 16 of 26 Committee Member McCormack stated in going back to question number 2, regarding the zero curb. He was suggesting that there be ramping up and ramping down of the curb areas to create flat areas with bollards for protection. Mr. Romero stated that was how they had interpreted the suggestion. They would be conducting a safety study prior to making their decision to add those elements to the walkway areas. Committee Member McCormack stated the zero curb areas would not allow cars to get into the hospital areas, but allow pedestrians to freely flow and eliminated the need for the handicap ramps. He asked if the 138 trees included the terraces and CHOC South? Applicant, Stephanie Shermoen, stated it had included those areas. Committee Member McCormack asked if the count included all the trees. Ms. Shermoen stated all the trees that had been presented were included in the count. Committee Member McCormack stated they could explore the realm of small patio trees. He pointed to an area of the plans where there were street trees and asked if those were next to the curb or in the planting areas? Ms. Fox stated the tree removal requirements allowed for consideration of removal and replacement both on and off site. For the purposes of the DRC review, the 138 trees that were presented in the report were all on site. There were some additional trees that would be added to the right of way with the proposed project. Committee Member McCormack pointed out an area where he suggested the addition of trees. It was an opportunity to add more trees and he had not noticed any trees on Pepper Street? Ms. Shermoen stated they were restricted on that side with the canopy of the trees and the utilities. There were a large number of underground utilities that had to be considered. They could consider some trees in pots; however, planting was not feasible in that area. Mr. Talarico stated they had looked at putting alternating varieties to incorporate what was on the street and on the campus and they had chosen not to go with that. They worked with the City standard and had come up with the proposed design to accomplish their goals. Committee Member McCormack stated in the parking lot they could consider diamond planters. Ms. Shermoen stated the lot he was speaking about was a transitional parking area and they could look at that option in the future. Mr. Talarico stated in listening to the discussion during the Administrative Session, the DRC had mentioned right for the right location, right for the right site and it was applicable for what they were proposing. The tree count should not be just used to get at a number and not over force the issue to get to a number. Their site was different. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 4, 2009 Page 17 of 26 Committee Member Gladson asked what the thought was when the total number of trees could not be met and what was the possibility of looking at alternate specimen sizes? Committee Member McCormack stated the size that was being proposed looked adequate, the size looked quite large. Ms. Shermoen stated they worked with a lot of Palm trees. They had beefed up the size on many of the trees used. The patio trees would be 15 gallon trees in pots. They had not speed out all of the tree sizes yet. The design of the pots had not been finalized. The pots would also help with the height of the trees. Committee Member Gladson stated there had also been the discussion of having a mix of trees along La Veta. Committee Member McCormack stated he had previously spoken about a campus feel and possibly La Veta would be on campus and Main Street would be off campus and how to make La Veta different. Possibly adding green screens to the La Veta facade and none along Main Street, there were a number of different choices for that area. Ms. Fox stated other than the 15 gallon terrace trees, 3 of the trees were proposed at 24" box and the Palm trees would be chosen by trunk height. Mr. Talarico stated the terrace spaces presented other opportunities for landscape. There was a lot of building there; however, it was a good green space. Committee Member Woollett stated he had reviewed the traffic studies, although that was not his expertise. The EIR stated no impact. It was very clear how the south bound traffic would be handled from Pepper and he asked if that was a new concept with a stop sign and a free zone? Mr. Talarico stated the area along Pepper was a traffic engineering nightmare. When the project was complete there would be two emergency rooms. They had discussed the scenario with a father driving, a bleeding child, and a crying child and how would they get in -how would one parent unload and the other park the car? Over the course of meeting with two City Traffic Engineers the driveway, which he pointed to on the plans, had been shifted around. The design worked with both the emergency functions, fire functions and traffic/pedestrian concerns. They were working with Public Works to eliminate a sidewalk area to allow more free right out of that area. Committee Member Woollett was pleased that the traffic issues were addressed and that the stop sign and free zone would always allow a turn at that entrance and that was critical. Committee Member Gladson stated from the previous meeting some of her concerns were a bit broader. She had a question that she had asked Staff, there was a south west specific plan in the area and they had spoke about urban design features. She wanted assurance that the project had been in compliance with that particular plan. In the 1990's that was discussed and decided. The EIR stated that it complied with the specific plan and that the hospital was exempt for that compliance. Interesting enough that the criteria for the south west project area was an urban feel, City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 4, 2009 Page 18 of 26 which she felt the building achieved and all though the hospital would not have fallen under those mandates it had met them. In the aesthetics, having the whole picture and the materials presented was helpful, it was nice to have a building that had articulation and movement and all the interesting elements. She felt they could offer some suggestions for the corner of Main and La Veta to soften that building that would remain there and she had not been bothered about the project not meeting the tree count. One of the permits the applicant was required to obtain was the development agreement and she imagined that would be a trade off from the benefits the public, the City and the Community would be getting. Committee Member McCormack made a motion to recommend approval to the Planning Commission of DRC No. 4209-07, CHOC Master Plan, with the specific recommended conditions contained in the Staff Report and with the following conditions: 1) Match the roof angle to the westerly red element to a similar form as the easterly red element as shown on the elevations. 2) Address the responses that were still under review on Table A, Attachment E, and that those studies be finalized. Incorporate traffic calming, such as elimination of the curb within the entrance drive along with bollards, if warranted, after further safety studies were conducted. Ms. Fox asked the DRC to confirm the timeframe associated with this condition since this project was tentatively scheduled to go to the Planning Commission on March 2; she wanted to make sure the Applicant could meet applicable timeframes. After discussion, it was determined that this condition was required to be completed prior to issuance of a grading permit. 3) Explore the possibility of additional landscape treatment to the south elevation of the five-level parking structure facing La Veta Avenue, in order to distinguish it from the landscape treatment on Main Street. This condition would be tied to approval of final landscape and irrigation plans, which are required prior to issuance of a grading permit. SECOND: Adrienne Gladson AYES: Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None RECUSED: Bill Cathcart MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 4, 2009 Page 19 of 26 4) DRC No. 4373-08 - AT&T ROOFTOP CHILLER A proposal to replace an existing rooftop chiller and to provide a 12.5 foot high screening wall around the chiller. 911 East Chapman Avenue Staff Contact: Chad Ortlieb, 714-744-7237, cortlieb(cr~,cit. oy forange.org DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission Senior Planner, Chad Ortlieb, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Jaime Huerta, address on file, stated they were working to come up with a practical solution to their problem. The existing chiller had been a burden to the business, the chiller was supporting the building and once it failed they ran into a heat problem with the building. That factor affected the network equipment and they wanted to arrive at a solution as quickly as they could. Public Comment None. Chair Wheeler opened the item for discussion. Committee Member Woollett asked if the building contained one chiller and how many tons was it? Mr. Huerta stated yes, there was one chiller at 90 tons. Committee Member Woollett stated the plan was to replace the faulty chiller with one other chiller. Mr. Huerta stated they had two chillers on site, one that was currently holding the entire building and the one that they were proposing to replace was the failed chiller. Applicant, Todd Haggenmiller, address on file, stated chillers failed from time to time, and in order to maintain the reliability of the telecom equipment and meet FCC regulations, they were required to maintain a back up unit. The two units generally had dual compressors in each one of them with the ability to handle approximately 60% of the building. As they were in the winter months they were able to operate off of one chiller. Committee Member Woollett stated chillers were notoriously noisy. He had experience with chillers. He asked if AT&T had ever used ground source cooling? Mr. Haggenmiller stated he could not speak to that. They had green technologies and green type approaches at different sites, which included the use of solar. Within the AT&T portfolio he was City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 4, 2009 Page 20 of 26 certain they had ground source recovery, however, that triggered a whole new set of issues with CEQA. He questioned the practicality in the current situation. Committee Member Woollett asked if there had been any sound studies completed on the proposed project. He felt because the chiller would not be fully screened the sound would be moving into the direction of the residential area. Mr. Haggenmiller reviewed the plans with the Committee Members and stated the sound would be moving away in the opposite direction, not toward the residents. There was a church and school across the street on Chapman. Mr. Ortlieb stated they had requested noise data, and the conclusion was that at 50' away with respect to the height of the building and the screening proposed the noise would be significantly under what the noise thresholds would be. He passed out a report and a diagram to the Committee Members for their review and explained the data to the Committee Members. Committee Member Woollett asked if that information had been included in their packets? Mr. Ortlieb stated it was not included as a Design Review Committee component. Committee Member Gladson stated there were two chillers on the roof. She asked if they had looked at different location options for the chiller? She felt getting it closer to Chapman would be a better solution. Mr. Haggenmiller stated they had looked into different locations, however, had run into problems with the sound issue. In moving to Chapman the mass of the chiller would be moved closer to the street and then there were the visual aspects. They were attempting to have the best location for screening, mass and sound. They could move it closer to the front of the building, but that would mean the screen would be more visible. Committee Member Gladson stated it was a matter of screening and on how to screen most of it; she was more inclined to want the equipment closer to the Chapman side and not the residential area. The building was already massive and she would not want there to be a noise factor. Committee Member McCormack asked if the residents on Cambridge had been notified? Mr. Ortlieb stated the noticing would occur prior to a Planning Commission hearing. Chair Wheeler asked if there had been any consideration to place the chiller on the lower east side roof? Mr. Haggenmiller stated there was a house that sat next to that location and it was difficult to obtain the noise level requirement. Chair Wheeler stated it would be less of a visual impact and his thought was at a lower location the sound would not travel that far. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 4, 2009 Page 21 of 26 Committee Member Gladson stated the reality was that if the new chiller would not meet the noise requirement it would be the applicant's responsibility to correct that. Committee Member Woollett stated he would not accept a report that was not signed by an entity that would be taking responsibility for it, such as a licensed engineer. His experience with acoustics made him wary. He had worked on an animal shelter project in South County where he had spent a great deal of time working on the acoustics of the project. If the source of the noise was visible, generally it could be heard, he was concerned with the visual aspects of the project. The visual and the acoustics went hand-in-hand for him. He would not want to be in a situation where the unit was installed and then there was a noise situation such as a residential complaint, and then the way to solve it would be to add additional screening. He was not satisfied with the report that had been supplied. Committee Member McCormack stated there were site line studies that could be done. As the issue was visual there was generally a site line study and he had not found one in their packet. Being able to review that data would mitigate a lot for him. Mr. Haggenmiller stated a good portion of the chiller would be visible; the existing chillers were quite visible. They would be adding screening which was an addition to what was currently on the roof structure. The noise would be dropped from what existed at the site as the service would be running on the new chiller which was quieter. There was not the high pitched squeal associated with older models. Committee Member McCormack asked if the applicant could provide a site line study? Mr. Haggenmiller stated they could provide that, however, the screen and units would be visible from all sides of the building. The original thinking was when the back-up generator was replaced there had been additional screening added to the building with the anticipation of having the screening continue for the new chiller. Chair Wheeler stated on the drawings what appeared in Phase 3 looked like additional screening. If the chiller was placed on a lower level there would not be the height issue and the need to go before the Planning Commission. Committee Member Gladson stated she was in favor of attempting to get some of the answers back to the DRC to enable her to get a comprehensive look at everything. She felt a screen approach was fine; however, she was inclined to strongly suggest a number of alternatives such as moving the unit to a lower level or to provide site line information and noise details. Chair Wheeler stated rather than providing a site line detail they could put up a PVC pipe mock- up and then advise the DRC when it was up, to allow them to take a look at it. Committee Member Woollett stated they could take PVC pipe and set it on the building. Chair Wheeler stated he could not imagine that they would have more of a sound problem with the unit at a lower location and there would be less of a visual problem. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 4, 2009 Page 22 of 26 Committee Member Woollett asked about all the other equipment that was visible? Chair Wheeler stated that was not within their prevue as it was existing non-compliant. Mr. Haggenmiller stated there was the alternative of a full screen around the equipment or a full screen around the perimeter of the building. Committee Member McCormack stated a full screen around the building would add too much mass. Chair Wheeler stated if the applicant was willing to screen to the level of Phase 3 of the drawings he could call it good. Chair Wheeler made a motion to recommend approval to the Planning Commission of DRC No. 4373-08, AT & T Rooftop Chiller, with the conditions contained in the Staff Report, and with the following condition: 1) The sound enclosure be constructed to the Phase 3 level as indicated on the roof plan and be consistent with the elevation as presented. SECOND: Tim McCormack AYES: Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Bill Cathcart MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 4, 2009 Page 23 of 26 5) DRC No. 4401-08 -BOB'S BIG BOY A proposal to complete the exterior facade and interior tenant improvements to accommodate the establishment of a new 4,589 square foot restaurant. 1623 West Katella Avenue, Suite #102 Staff Contact: Chad Ortlieb, 714-744-7237, cortlieb(a,cityoforange.org DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission Senior Planner, Chad Ortlieb, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Ruben Burrola, address on file stated, the property as it stood appeared as a two tenant building. They had removed some of the doors that were replaced with glass. The intent was for the space to look as one restaurant and not multi-tenant spaces. Public Comment None. Chair Wheeler opened the item for discussion. Chair Wheeler pointed out an area on the plans and stated his biggest issue was the fussy cornice that had not fit in with the rest of the complex. He suggested they use a simple rectangular cornice that was used in other areas of the complex. He was concerned that there be consistency. He was surprised that there was not a cover or awning in front of the entry. Applicant, Tracy Nonnemacher, address on file, stated they had added a checkerboard area to identify the entrance. Chair Wheeler stated there were checkered areas on other parts of the building and the checkerboard around the entrance would not set it apart. He suggested a covered or protected area at the entrance. Committee Member Gladson referred to a photo in her packet of another Bob's Big Boy Restaurant that had the checkered design just in front of the entry and she suggested that the proposed project they were reviewing could have the same treatments. She stated the entrance had appeared very plain. Chair Wheeler stated the composition of the design appeared to have no theme. There were pilasters, one that was at full height, there were others that went as far as the checkers and there were others that went to the awning. He suggested more consistency with the pilasters and pointed out some areas that could be cleaned up. Committee Member Woollett stated the black and white checkerboard was a Big Boy Theme. Ms. Nonnemacher stated it was a red and white checkerboard. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 4, 2009 Page 24 of 26 Committee Member Woollett stated he understood where they would want to have that element at the entrance. Applicant, Bobby Sawhney, address on file, stated the initial design had included an awning at the entrance, however, the restaurant representatives led them in the direction of framing the entrance with the checkerboard design and no awning. They wanted the awning to frame the patio. He understood the Committee's concern with the checkerboard design and where it appeared. Committee Member Woollett stated the checkerboard would not necessarily need to be in a band, and had they given any thought to a more dominant checkerboard at the entrance that would strongly denote an entrance. Ms. Nonnemacher stated they had looked at a similar design; however, the remainder of the building would look like a step sister of the project if they used that approach. Committee Member Gladson pointed out the checkerboard pattern on a photo from one of the other restaurant locations. The Committee Members reviewed the photos and plans. Committee Member Woollett stated the checkerboard went along the north elevation and turned the corner with the entrance at the corner and asked for clarification on how the checkered pattern went around the corner of the building. He asked how patrons would get to the entrance? Ms. Nonnemacher clarified the corner area on the plans and stated there was a common walkway from the theatre with parking on the other end; she pointed this out on the plans. Committee Member McCormack asked if it made more sense to continue the patio and to make that area the entrance? Mr. Burrola stated they had planned on extending the patio, however, they had run into parking problems and they were required to modify the plans. Ms. Nonnemacher stated a lot of their added square footage was required for additional walkway areas. Mr. Sawhney stated with the current design they were able to accommodate more patrons and had increased the seating area. Committee Member McCormack suggested moving the seating back to allow more areas for landscape. Mr. Sawhney stated the way the seating was arranged was to maximize the seating in the shaded areas. One aspect they had not placed in the design, as it was part of the sign package and it was a bit premature to discuss, would be a statue which would be a focal point and it was a rather large statue which assisted in designating the entry. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 4, 2009 Page 25 of 26 Committee Member Gladson stated the space was far away from Tustin and more of an interior space. She agreed with the comments made by her fellow Committee Members on the consistency of architectural elements. She was pleased with the project. Mr. Burrola stated the space was more of a Spectrum-type mall. Committee Member Woollett made a motion to approve recommendation to the Planning Commission of DRC No. 4401-08, Bob's Big Boy, with the conditions contained in the Staff Report and with the following condition: 1) Cornice be the same height as the adjacent cornice, in a simple rectangular form And with the following suggestion: 1) The pilasters and columns to be studied for consistency. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Bill Cathcart, Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 4, 2009 Page 26 of 26 ADJOURNMENT: Committee Member McCormack made a motion to adjourn to the next regular scheduled meeting on Wednesday, February 18, 2009 at 5:00. The meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m. SECOND: Adrienne Gladson AYES: Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Bill Cathcart MOTION CARRIED.