05-20-2009 DRC MinutesCITY OF ORANGE
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
MINUTES -FINAL
May 20, 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
Robert Garcia, Associate Planner
Doris Nguyen, Associate Planner
Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner
Anna Pehoushek, Principal Planner
Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary
Administrative Session - 5:00 P.M.
The Committee met for an Administrative Session beginning at 5:17 p.m.
Vice Chair Gladson opened the Administrative Session with any information from Staff.
Planning Manager, Leslie Aranda Roseberry, stated Staff had received some last minute
correspondence from the applicant for Item No. 3, questioning some of the conditions for their
sign program. Staff would be reviewing that and presenting a copy of the email received to the
Committee Members. The applicant for Item No. 3 had also requested to be heard first on the
Agenda and she would allow the Committee Members to make that determination. There was no
additional Policy or Procedural information and there were no minutes to review. Ms. Aranda
Roseberry stated Principal Planner, Anna Pehoushek, was present to present an overview of the
Artificial Turf Ordinance Amendment.
Ms. Pehoushek stated Staff had prepared an artificial turf amendment. The amendment was
generated by a need for alternatives as Southern California faced drought conditions and the
associated incentives being provided by the Municipal Water District of Orange County that
were providing rebates to property owners for water conservation related to the installation of
artificial turf. Last year during the summer months the City began receiving a number of
inquiries from property owners wanting to install artificial turf. Those property owners visited
the Planning Counter and spoke with City Planners and it was concluded that artificial turf
should be treated as hadscape rather than landscape and artificial turf was not being allowed to
be used in place of grass in front yards. That interpretation made its way to the City Council
where discussion ensued about Staff's interpretation conflicting with the drought issues and the
impending increase in water rates and the Municipal Water District's rebate program. Last
September City Council directed Staff to prepare an Ordinance Amendment to allow the use of
artificial turf as landscape. In addition to the Code Amendments, for the sake of internal
consistency, an amendment was made to the City's landscape standards and specifications and
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for May 20, 2009
Page 2 of 31
also to the Old Towne Design Standards. In terms of the Code Amendments, the significant
change was to the definition of landscape to include artificial turf in that definition. It was
important to point out that the revision would not include any other type of artificial plants as
landscape, only artificial turf. For purposes of Code Enforcement there was an addition to that
portion of the Code that pertained to Declaration of Nuisance and the new language described
what would constitute a nuisance in regard to artificial turf conditions. Those would be issues
such as faded material, unnatural appearance, stains, rips, visible seams, poor drainage and
unsecured or unsafe surfaces. In terms of changes Staff proposed in the landscape standards and
specifications they had added asub-section in the section of standards and specs pertaining to
construction specifications for sod and that focus was on installation of artificial turf that would
have a natural appearance and that would be maintained in a manner that would maintain a life-
like appearance. The standards and specifications would also direct the public to seek the
installation of artificial turf by a licensed professional and discouraged the use of filler material
that was heat absorbing or generated an odor, such as prim rubber which was black and absorbed
heat and gave off a rubber tire smell. That was the type of thing that Staff wanted to discourage.
Ms. Pehoushek stated with respect to the Old Towne Design Standards there was discussion at
the City Council meeting about whether or not artificial turf should be allowed in Old Towne and
it went along the same lines as vinyl fencing whether it was appropriate in the district. There
was discussion on how artificial turf could or could not be used in Old Towne and there had been
an amendment related to the standards in the Plaza, spoke streets, and residential quadrants to
allow the use of artificial turf in areas that would not be visible in the public right-of--way. That
would involve both public and private properties; therefore, it would not be used in parks,
parkways, or front yard areas. It could appear in certain side yard areas, back yards, and interior
courtyard spaces. Those were the extent of the changes to those documents and the changes
would not require property owners to obtain a permit for installation of artificial turf. It was
simply guidance that was being put out there for the community.
Committee Member Wheeler asked if an alley was considered a public right-of--way?
Ms. Pehoushek stated it was publicly owned.
Committee Member Wheeler stated that should be clarified as it would preclude property owners
from installing artificial turf in their backyards if they were on an alley.
Mso Pehoushek stated that was a good point and if it was an unenclosed backyard could apply.
Committee Member Cathcart stated on the vocabulary: Installed by a licensed professional. He
asked what that meant?
Chair McCormack asked if there was no permit required how was that governed? It would
almost be necessary to require a permit to govern the use of a licensed professional.
Ms. Pehoushek stated City Council was very clear on the request that they had not wanted any
type of provision associated with the Ordinance Amendment to require the need to obtain a
permit. Their position was that people should be able to install artificial turf just as they would
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for May 20, 2009
Page 3 of 31
be allowed to plant a lawn. What was to say a dead lawn would look worse than fake grass. The
City Council was very clear in not wanting a complicated process.
Committee Member Woollett stated if that was the case why were some of the requirements
written into the ordinance as it appeared that the City Council had not wanted that?
Ms. Pehoushek stated City Council wanted to allow the use of artificial turf and they also wanted
the City to have provisions to keep it from looking terrible.
Ms. Aranda Roseberry, stated the current code had no provisions for artificial turf and Staff had
nothing to lean on to advise property owners of where it would be permissible or where it would
not be allowed. They had been using the 40/60% hardscape requirement and from an
implementation standpoint some framework was necessary when they received those calls
pertaining to artificial turf.
Chair McCormack asked how would Staff govern the fact that it was not landscape and being
hardscape property owners could park their vehicles on it? Was there a way to avoid having that
occur?
Ms. Pehoushek stated there were Code Enforcement provisions that would not allow that type of
parking. They would address artificial turf in the same manner as grass. The definition of
landscaping would include artificial turf. A person would be cited for parking on a lawn and the
same would apply with parking on artificial turf.
Committee Member Cathcart stated the use of a licensed professional still needed to be
addressed. If the City Council wanted homeowners to access artificial turf as easily as a lawn
and if that person was not a licensed contractor how would that person get around the fact that
the ordinance required a licensed professional?
Ms. Pehoushek stated Staff was not requiring, but recommending that advice be sought from
someone who was knowledgeable in the installation of artificial turf.
Committee Member Gladson stated Staff may want to look at rewording the second paragraph.
Ms. Pehoushek stated there was no specific licensing for artificial turf installation; simply a
licensed contractor, not someone that was just doing it on the side.
Committee Member Woollett stated he understood Staff was stating that bad artificial turf was
worse than a bad lawn.
Chair McCormack stated that was correct and it was hotter too. He asked on the 60/40%
requirement what would stop a commercial developer from landscaping their entire project in
artificial turf.
Ms. Pehoushek stated nothing; in the manner that the ordinance was framed and the way the City
Council wanted to interpret artificial turf was in the same manner that grass was interpreted. She
stated that artificial turf could be used in the same manner as sod.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for May 20, 2009
Page 4 of 31
Chair McCormack asked if they could plant trees in the artificial turf?
Ms. Pehoushek stated artificial trees would not be considered landscaping.
Committee Member Woollett stated an ideal installation would be porous asphalt with the
artificial turf on top of it to allow water to filter through the turf into the ground.
Ms. Pehoushek stated artificial turf would be installed on soil. There would be soil, a stabilizing
material, and then the artificial turf. Each manufacturer had a different type of recommendation
for the stabilizing material. The idea was that artificial turf would function in the same manner
as grass in that it would have filtration to the ground. The MWD requirements would not want
to see poor water quality run-off from the artificial turf.
Chair McCormack asked if a complaint was filed how would the City handle Code Enforcement?
What line of rules would Code Enforcement use?
Ms. Pehoushek stated there had been a section added to the Declaration of Nuisance section that
was specific to artificial turf. It explained if the turf became faded, stained, torn, if there were
visible seams, standing water, or an unnatural appearance that those would be items that would
require Code Enforcement.
Chair McCormack asked what type of enforcement would that be; would the property owner be
required to repair it in-kind?
Ms. Pehoushek stated the artificial turf would need to be repaired or replaced to satisfy the
requirement for life-like appearance.
Committee Member Cathcart stated it appeared that the Ordinance was going to need some
massaging, to put it into place and have the questions asked and to solve situations one by one.
He felt one of the problems was that there were a lot of parking spaces being converted into play
areas using artificial turf and there were playing fields using artificial turf.
Chair McCormack stated with sports fields typically there would not be trees planted if a dome
was used to cover it. The artificial turf surface became too hot to play on and defeated the
purpose of its use as a playing field. To solve the heat issue a water system would need to be
installed, which defeated the purpose of water conservation. He felt that if artificial turf was
used for a sports field there would need to be mitigation measures to ensure it could be used in
warmer weather.
Ms. Pehoushek stated when there was discussion with City Council, Staff had compiled a packet
of research information which dealt with issues of heat, odor, and all the different problems they
had been discussing; and ultimately City Council directed Staff to move forward with the
ordinance. It was understood that there were problems with the use of artificial turf.
Committee Member Gladson asked if City Council was interested in using artificial turf in public
parks? She felt it was not appropriate in a park; maybe in parkways and medians.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for May 20, 2009
Page 5 of 31
Committee Members discussed the use of artificial turf on professional athletic fields.
Committee Member Cathcart stated it was used in some of the outdoor fields where it was
necessary to cool off the surface with water and they needed to be cleaned.
Ms. Pehoushek stated the ordinance would not prohibit the use of artificial turf in parks.
Committee Member Gladson stated from her personal viewpoint it would be something she
would want City Council to look at a little more closely and the Planning Commission to look at.
Ms. Pehoushek stated the Planning Commission reviewed the item on Monday, May 18, 2009
and they had no comments.
Committee Member Gladson stated she felt the DRC would have input on the functionality and
the look in a large public area. In a backyard she was not troubled by it.
Chair Wheeler stated it could not be in a front yard in Old Towne.
Ms. Pehoushek stated that was correct.
Chair McCormack asked if artificial turf was being promoted as a verbal checklist item when
applicants came to the counter or was it something that was just sitting in the landscape
ordinance that would need to be looked for?
Ms. Pehoushek stated it was just out there. If property owners asked about artificial turf it would
give Staff a means to deal with it. Perhaps in Public Works where they would be involved with
education and incentive programs there might be more communication regarding its use. There
had been links added to the Orange Goes Green information to the incentives and rebates
available. She had noticed in reviewing the Water District website that the rebates and grant
monies had been exhausted and they would be taking reservations for future rebate programs. It
was difficult to know how big of an issue artificial turf would present. It could be that property
owners would realize the heat element and they might opt not to use it; there had been articles
that spoke to that issue and how people had removed it due to the heat issue. It remained to be
seen how popular it would be.
Committee Member Gladson stated she felt that was the way the City of Orange would do
things; to allow the property owner to try new products and she would not want an installation of
artificial turf to look bad. She felt the Declaration of Nuisance items would give Staff a level of
Code Enforcement to move them in the right direction. She had an issue with the application of
artificial turf in a large public place. City Council may allow that despite what the DRC
recommended and that was their choice.
Committee Member Cathcart stated Chapman College had quite a large area of artificial turf.
Chair McCormack stated El Modena had it and he felt it was appropriate.
Committee Member Woollett stated he hoped Staff got what they wanted from them.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for May 20, 2009
Page 6 of 31
Committee Member Gladson stated technology was evolving and just the fact that decent
looking artificial turf was available was quite an accomplishment.
Ms. Pehoushek stated they had spoken about how they would deal with the disposal of artificial
turf.
Committee Member Cathcart stated in actuality the finer the look of artificial turf required the
use of more rubber beads and kids got dirtier on artificial turf than they did in sand areas. There
was also the discussion of Staph infection.
Ms. Pehoushek stated there was a product that was being developed from cocoa fiber and it was
a more natural product. The industry was evolving.
Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated that the applicant of Item No. 3 no longer needed to be moved up
in the Agenda.
Committee Member Cathcart made a motion to adjourn the Administrative Session.
Administrative Session adjourned at 5:42 p.m.
SECOND: Craig Wheeler
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 members were present.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:
Opportunity for members of the public to address the Design .Review Committee on
matters not listed on the Agenda.
There was none.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for May 20, 2009
Page 7 of 31
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: None
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for May 20, 2009
Page 8 of 31
AGENDA ITEMS:
Continued Items: None
New Agenda Item:
1) DRC No. 4299-07 -CITRUS GROVE APARTMENTS
A request for design review of carports, solar panels, and acoustic barriers in compliance
with the DRC's Conditions of Approval for an approved 57-unit affordable apartment
complex.
1120 N. Lemon Street
Staff Contact: Doris Nguyen, (714) 744-7223, do uyen(a~cityoforange.org
Previous Reviews Apri12, 2008 and May 21, 2008
DRC Action: Final Determination
Committee Member Cathcart was recused from the item presentation due to his association as
the landscape architect.
Associate Planner, Doris Nguyen, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report.
Applicant, Todd Cottle, address on file, stated he had no additional comments.
Public Comment
None.
Chair McCormack opened the item for discussion.
Committee Member Wheeler stated he was concerned with the carport. The drawings had not
provided too much information. It appeared the columns were rectangular steel tube.
Applicant, Barry Adnams, address on file, stated they were square columns.
Ms. Nguyen confirmed rectangular steel tube.
Mr. Adnams stated that was correct.
Committee Member Wheeler stated it appeared the only sheathing was '/2" plywood, which
meant that if someone was standing under the carport the nails and screws from the roofing and
solar panels would be visible.
Mr. Cottle stated that was correct. They could add another sheet of plywood.
Chair McCormack asked if there was lighting in the carports?
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for May 20, 2009
Page 9 of 31
Mr. Adnams stated the lighting would be on the columns themselves. There were two parking
bays per column and there would be a light for every two parking bays. The applicants reviewed
the plans with the Committee Members.
Chair McCormack asked if the conduit ran in the square thing?
Committee Member Wheeler asked where the conduit for the solar panels would be run?
Mr. Adnams stated he was not certain, however, he imagined it would run in the same manner as
on the other side.
Committee Member Wheeler asked that if the DRC conditioned that the conduit for the solar
panels needed to be concealed, would that present a hardship?
Mr. Cottle stated they could conceal it.
Mr. Adnams stated the conduit would need to be stubbed up in the footing.
Chair McCormack stated there was probably some code requirement. The solar panels would be
generating electricity.
Mr. Adnams stated that any exposed conduit would be EMT; it would be a steel reel of conduit
to meet the code requirements.
Committee Member Woollett stated he believed they were getting too fussy for carports in that
facility. He understood that the low voltage could not be run too far in reaching the converter. It
would be AC and the converters would be installed and he asked if the applicant was aware
where the converters would be located?
Mr. Cottle stated he was not certain as they had not gotten that far along in the project with the
solar.
Committee Member Woollett stated there would probably be some boxes in the framing that
were up out of the way.
Ms. Nguyen asked if it would be possible to have the wiring inside of a raceway?
Committee Member Woollett stated it was his understanding that normally on a solar panel
installation the wires from the solar panels actually went behind the solar panel and then dropped
down to an inverter with AC wire to the electrical meters. The meters would be on the building.
The proposed project was for a garage and even if there was conduit going to the lighting and it
was part of what was there in an open carport it would be okay.
Chair McCormack stated he was curious and asked what was the intent of the solar panels. Were
they feeding the different units or just turning the meter?
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for May 20, 2009
Page 10 of 31
Mr. Cottle stated it would feed the house meter on the property and the solar was specific to the
house meter. The apartments would be individually metered with a common area with an
electrical meter.
Committee Member Woollett stated the solar would offset the common areas with lighting and
things like that.
Committee Member Gladson stated the Committee had addressed that in the early stages of the
project when they spoke to the advantages of solar.
Chair McCormack stated he only had a few questions which were on the solar panel, what type
of roof, which had been answered -composition roof and there was wood frame for the 3/8"
tempered glass where the exhibit showed aluminum and he asked for clarification.
Ms. Nguyen stated the photos provided were just typical examples.
Mr. Adnams stated they were looking at aluminum store fronts. The material would be
aluminum.
Chair McCormack stated the Staff Report showed wood painted to match.
Mr. Adnams stated it was proposed aluminum.
Ms. Nguyen stated the Staff Report read in the mitigation measure: They may be constructed of
wood studs with stucco exterior 3/8" plate glass; 5/8" plate Plexiglas or any material or
combination of those materials.
Mr. Adnams stated they proposed glass supported by an aluminum store front.
Committee Member Gladson pointed to a detail on the plans and asked for the projection?
Mr. Cottle stated it was a very flat panel and it would probably not be more than 2" off the roof.
He showed her a carport project that had been done in San Diego and showed an example of the
profile and the gap that they anticipated on their project.
Chair McCormack stated the proposed project presented a gable roof and asked why they chose
that instead of a shed roof?
Mr. Cottle stated it was just a detail they chose.
Committee Member Wheeler stated he thought it looked nice and suggested adding a vertical
king post to give the tie rod more support in the event people used it to hang things on, such as
bicycles.
Mr. Cottle stated they could check with their structural engineer. From the management side of
the business they would manage things like that very closely.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for May 20, 2009
Page 11 of 31
Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve DRC No. 4299-07, Citrus Grove
Apartments, subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report and with the following
recommendation:
1. That care be taken to eliminate all visibility of the roofing fasteners through the roof
sheathing and to organize the electrical and photovoltaic wiring as well as possible to
eliminate any clutter.
And with the following condition:
1. Sound barrier panel frame shall be aluminum.
SECOND:Joe Woollett
AYES:Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Joe Woollett, Craig Wheeler
NOES:None
ABSTAIN:None
ABSENT:None
RECUSED:Bill Cathcart
MOTION CARRIED.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for May 20, 2009
Page 12 of 31
3) DRC No. 4418-09 & CUP No. 2750-09 -STADIUM PROMENADE SIGN PROGRAM
A proposal to establish a sign program for the Stadium Promenade and Extended Stay
America sites. The sign program proposes deviations from the standards in the sign
code, such as additional signs for major tenants, secondary sign standards, additional
sign area, and use of iconic elements/signs.
1411, 1521, 1623, 1635, and 1701 W. Katella Avenue
Staff Contact: Chad Ortlieb, (714) 744-7237, cortlieb(a,cityoforan~e.org
DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission
Senior Planner, Chad Ortlieb, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report.
Applicant, Robert Atkinson, address on file, stated he was in agreement with Mr. Ortlieb's
comments to the 1/3 ratio in Item No. 3. On some of the buildings that were within 100 feet of
the street and the sign code allowed 2 square foot of sign per linear foot of building, his request
was that if the sign was within 100 feet of the street that the 1 square foot per linear foot would
make sense due to the distant. Going beyond 100', he was asking for 2 square feet per linear
foot.
Public Comment
None.
Chair McCormack opened the item for discussion.
Committee Member Wheeler stated on recommendation No. 2 it should be worded that Stadium
Promenade tenant signs located within 100' from Katella Avenue; that the location of the sign
was within 100' rather than the building and he asked the applicant if that would work for him?
Mr. Atkinson stated it would.
Committee Member Wheeler asked on the 3rd line down was it supposed to state 1 square foot of
sign per corresponding linear foot of building elevation or was the intent to be 1 linear foot of
sign? He felt it should be 1 square foot of sign per corresponding 1 square foot of lineal foot of
building elevation.
Mr. Ortlieb stated that was correct.
Committee Member Wheeler stated with an entertainment center, such as the proposed project,
there should be some flexibility for extra signage and fun signage was very suitable. He would
want to go a bit further in one area, on architectural or free standing signs he was very unhappy
that they were not able to approve the Chili Pepper for the Chili's Restaurant and he was
wondering if the Chili Pepper would fit within the size limitations for signs.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for May 20, 2009
Page 13 of 31
Mr. Atkinson stated he believed it would, if the Chili Pepper was larger than 5' x 10' he would
personally say no, especially given their presence on the street. They had done Chili Peppers up
to 6' and that was on restaurants that were further away from the street. If there was a large mass
of wall it worked and having the 5' x 10' cap for iconic features would allow them to come back
with an appropriate sized Chili Pepper.
Committee Member Wheeler stated would it work to state no larger than 5' x 10' and allow the
tenants to work within that.
Mr. Atkinson stated that made sense.
Chair McCormack stated if a tenant brought in an iconic sign would that lessen the size of the
primary signage?
Mr. Atkinson stated no.
Chair McCormack stated the sign bands would not change if a tenant would come in with an
iconic sign. Basically the sign program would allow a 5' x 10' sign, whatever it was, a large
chili or big straw hat.
Mr. Atkinson stated it would be subject to the Staff and landlord approval as long as it was
tasteful and it was geared to all tenants.
Committee Member Gladson stated the reality was that not all tenants would have an iconic sign.
Chair McCormack stated the signs would be made of many different things, like concrete,
Plexiglas, glass, and how was lighting dealt with to avoid having an internally illuminated chili
pepper that flashed for example.
Planning Manager, Leslie Aranda Roseberry, stated there was a code section that spoke to
lighting and prohibited any flashing or scintillating lighting.
Chair McCormack asked if there were guidelines for external illumination or was it just wide
open?
Mr. Ortlieb stated there was a section in the sign program that dealt with external lighting and it
spoke about the light source being shielded and not visible from the front or side of the light
fixture and it spoke about illuminated surfaces and light sources such as luminescent glass panels
and ensured that the illumination would not exceed '/2 foot candle at the property line, etc. The
section also spoke about signage on the building fascia and had not actually addressed free-
standing signage in the same manner. They could construe that it would be using something
similar such as neon or LED and from his understanding many of the newer signs were
transitioning to the LED standards which helped to keep the heat down on the iconic features as
well.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for May 20, 2009
Page 14 of 31
Mr. Atkinson stated the Bob's Big Boy statue would not be internally illuminated and that tenant
was proposing to install a spot light to hit the "Bob" with a little bit of light to be visible from
Katella.
Committee Member Wheeler stated, aside from the sign program, in looking at the Auld Irisher
the DRC had requested that the pilaster be repainted in order not to appear so artificially
antiqued. It appeared that it had not been done.
Mr. Atkinson stated the pilaster had been repainted.
Committee Member Gladson stated she had visited the site approximately a week ago and that
had been her observation.
Mr. Atkinson restated the pilaster had been repainted, however, possibly not to the satisfaction of
the DRC.
Committee Member Gladson stated there were places that were down around the foundation that
had looked a little poor to her.
Committee Member Wheeler stated the antiquing looked like the area was dirty and he thought
that was going to be cleaned up. He recalled that the Committee had objected to that type of
antiquing and they could look at the minutes from that meeting to gain clarification.
Mr. Atkinson stated the tenant had a bond posted for their signage. The bond premium was
coming due soon.
Committee Member Gladson stated when the project was revisited there were those details that
had not left her mind.
Mr. Atkinson asked if those comments were associated with the signage or just with the
appearance of the facade?
Committee Member Wheeler stated it was just with the facade.
Mr. Atkinson stated he would communicate with the tenant that the repainting would still need to
be addressed.
Mr. Ortlieb stated he would appreciate receiving some examples of antiquing that he could pass
on to the applicant.
Committee Member Wheeler stated that would be difficult; it was a variation of paint. Charcoal
and black paint, it would be a good idea to review the minutes and verify what was stated and if
it was not included in the minutes it was fine.
Committee Member Gladson stated she felt the sign program being presented was very
appropriate for the area and having unique sign characteristics were important for the site.
Having larger signs and iconic signs were fun and would make the center successful in her
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for May 20, 2009
Page 15 of 31
opinion. She had a technical question on Page 7 of the sign program relating to the requirement
for each location to have two design elements incorporated into their sign and she asked what
those design elements might be? It would be helpful to have those elements specified.
Mr. Atkinson stated his interpretation was that related to materials and colors, multiple colors
and multiple textures, to create more interesting signage and it could be clarified to include
textures, materials, and colors.
Committee Member Gladson stated they might want to fashion some sort of list and to be more
specific. It would avoid having conflicts with what was meant with the design elements. She
suggested the addition of lighting techniques.
Mr. Atkinson stated he wanted to be cautious in adding lighting as each tenant would have a
primary identification sign and he would not want that lit with neon and LED and he would not
want lighting mixed on one sign.
Committee Member Gladson stated they might want backlighting or two ways of illuminating a
sign.
Mr. Atkinson stated at the end of the day it would be up to the discretion of Staff for the sign's
appropriateness.
Committee Member Gladson stated that sign requirement should be for all tenants and it would
be important to add that just for consistency and clarity. On the hotel, due to their placement on
the property, she understood they would not have their own free-standing sign and she asked if
that was the intent?
Mr. Atkinson stated they wanted to be on a panel and that was a condition; the hotel only wanted
to be on one panel at the primary entrance.
Committee Member Woollett stated the iconic signs bothered him a bit in terms of interpretation.
After reading through the material it was clearly speaking to 3-dimensional elements. Clearly an
iconic sign was not necessarily 3-dimensional and he felt there should be a better definition of
that.
Committee Member Wheeler asked if it could read 3-dimensional iconic elements?
Committee Member Woollett stated they could use the term 3-dimensional iconic elements early
on, or would they need to reference it every time. It was not the intent to change all the
language. He had not wanted it to come up later to be misinterpreted.
Mr. Ortlieb stated that the applicant had pointed out in Page 9, Section 6.8, there was a bit more
detail that mentioned 3-dimensional and stated "can be configured;" the language could be
changed to "shall be configured."
Committee Member Woollett stated it was difficult, as a sign on a pedestal could be interpreted
as 3-dimensional.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for May 20, 2009
Page 16 of 31
Committee Member Gladson stated on the later part of that section that any conflict in the
interpretation could be brought to the DRC and she felt any iconic element that would go a bit
sideways with the definition would be brought back to the DRC.
Chair McCormack stated someone could come in with a pedestal sign and call that 3-
dimensional iconic and they could get an extra sign.
Mr. Ortlieb stated all signage would virtually be 3-dimensional, but the intent would need to be
there.
Committee Member Woollett stated the word sculptural could be used which would make it
clearer.
Committee Member Wheeler stated he felt the review requirements would be sufficient.
Committee Member Woollett stated he wanted to be clear on how the DRC would interpret the
intent of the requirement and he would hate for it to fall to the wayside due to the fact that it was
interpreted differently.
Chair McCormack stated it may need to be an iconic sculptural element or form.
Committee Member Wheeler stated he was okay with how it read and it would be reviewed by
Staff and the DRC; he was satisfied with that.
Committee Member Woollett stated the trouble with the word icon was that it was representative
with a particular product, it was a branding issue. The use of a sculptural icon was good.
Committee Member Wheeler stated there could be the use of a symbol.
Chair McCormack stated he wanted to avoid having someone perceive their simple rectangular
sign as a sculpture.
Committee Member Gladson stated she felt the Staff Report had a lot of direction and it was
clear. There was language that stated the signage should be related to the use and representative
of the tenant's identity. They would not get a beer mug if it was a hair salon.
Mr. Ortlieb stated there was a statement that referred to rectilinear images, such as monument
signs, shall not be considered architectural or iconic images. It was an extra level of comfort and
it gave pretty clear direction.
Committee Member Gladson made a motion to recommend approval to the Planning
Commission, DRC No. 4418-09 and CUP No. 2750-09, Stadium Promenade Sign Program,
subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report and with the following conditions:
1. Amend Condition No. 2 to change the word linear to square foot.
2. Change the 5' x 10' sign limitation to be within those dimensions.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for May 20, 2009
Page 17 of 31
3. The first sentence on Recommendation No. 2 be changed to: Stadium Promenade tenant
signage located within 100' from Katella Avenue.
4. Modify the sign program such that minor tenants that qualify under the sign code for
greater sign area be allowed to do so and that would be specifically for tenants that were
200' to 300' from the street be allowed 2 square feet for the 200' range and 3 square feet
at the 300' range in accordance with the sign code.
5. On Page 9 of the sign program to add the word "City", allowing the City the ability to
review proposals.
And with the following recommendation:
1. In the actual body of the sign program, change language of Section 6.4 to describe the
wall signs options for the two different design elements and to include that language for
the other type of signs for both major and non-major tenants to theatre and hospitality and
include secondary wall and blade signs.
SECOND: Bill Cathcart
AYES: Bill Cathcart, Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Joe Woollett, Craig Wheeler
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for May 20, 2009
Page 18 of 31
4) DRC No. 4419-09, CUP No. 2751-09, MNSP No. 0599-09, & AA No. 173-09 -VILLA
PARK CATERING
A proposal to expand an existing restaurant/banquet facility, consisting of a 3,512 square
foot banquet room and an open air patio area.
510 E. Katella Avenue
Staff Contact: Robert Garcia, (714) 744-7231, r~arcia _,cityoforange.org
DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission
Associate Planner, Robert Garcia, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report.
Applicant, Tim Zimprich, address on file, stated he had been at the location for seven years and
he had purchased the Chinese restaurant that was next door. He had torn it down and added the
parking lot to accommodate the new building.
Public Comment
None.
Chair McCormack opened the item for discussion.
Committee Member Cathcart asked, referring to the plans, between the plant material, on No. 2 it
had not referred to any mulch and asked if it would be bare dirt?
Mr. Zimprich stated that area was all redwood.
Committee Member Cathcart stated that was mulch. The other thing was that his experience
with Hibiscus Heterophelia was that it grew to 9' tall.
Mr. Zimprich stated they had not used Hibiscus; they used Peter Pan instead and Agapanthus.
Chair McCormack stated he had gone to the site and he had several comments. The plan had not
reflected what was going on at the site. It was quite confusing and he also had some
architectural questions. He could go through the landscaping. Some of the issues he had were
that there were a lot of things that caught his eye; he pointed to an area on the plans, the edge
was not indicative to what existed at the site. The site had Palm trees, giant Bird of Paradise
plants and they probably could not get any of the proposed landscaping in. He stated the existing
landscape should be shown on the plans which would allow the applicant to show proposed
appropriate landscape. He also stated all his comments were from a design point-of--view.
Whether there were Day Lilies or Peter Pan was landscaping that looked okay at a glance. The
King Palms were actually Queen Palms and he stated the plans needed to be brought up to a
reality as the plans presented had not reflected what could be done or what existed. He felt that a
total re-do of the plans was necessary, at least to get what existed at the site onto the plans. He
pointed out an area that plants had not existed and that there were parking spaces there. He also
felt there was an issue with stacking and he pointed out an area he had not understood as the
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for May 20, 2009
Page 19 of 31
parking appeared to go into the setback. In reviewing the plans, he realized that they were not
drawn to scale and he could not understand that. Chair McCormack pointed out an area and
stated it was a fire code issue and it appeared to not be adequate. There was different lighting in
one area, there was Nellie Gale lighting and Halogen Pole lights in another area, he was speaking
from a pure design standpoint. It would be okay to have all Halogen and he suggested doing
away with the Nellie Gale lights as many of them were broken. The trash enclosure could be
moved and another parking stall could be added. Presently there was a parking space in the
landscape setback and he felt that was not allowed, on the site there had been a van parked there
that had a business name on it and it was being used as a sign.
Mr. Zimprich stated it was his van which he parked there and he asked if he was able to park his
van there?
Chair McCormack stated he could not park in a landscape setback and it was right on the
sidewalk.
Mr. Zimprich stated the property was how he bought it seven years ago and he was being told
that the Palm tree which was referred to as King vs. a Queen Palm tree, and he stated it should
not be a matter, he had not understood.
Committee Member Wheeler stated he was going to have similar comments on the architecture
as the plans had not noted correctly what existed.
Committee Member Cathcart stated he thought he was reviewing what existed.
Mr. Zimprich asked if the Committee Members had been to the site and he asked if it was a nice
place?
Chair McCormack stated he had walked the site and it was a nice place. He was commenting on
the plan which was not a nice plan. The DRC was commenting on the plan. There was no such
thing as a Heterophelia and there was no such thing as a 25 gallon Palm tree.
Mr. Zimprich stated yes there was, go to Peltzer Pines, they were the ones who sold them to him.
Chair McCormack stated it was not a 25 gallon.
Mr. Zimprich stated yes it was, it was 25 gallon and he would bring him one tomorrow.
Committee Member Gladson stated the review was not meant to be adversarial.
Chair McCormack stated it was an attempt to make it better.
Mr. Zimprich stated everything he was doing was an attempt to make it better.
Committee Member Gladson stated it was a challenge and as Committee Members they had to
ensure that they were memorializing what he wanted to do.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for May 20, 2009
Page 20 of 31
Mr. Zimprich stated for his trash can to need to be moved, he had not thought that the people
driving down Shaffer would want to see a trash can.
Committee Member Gladson stated they were suggesting options.
Chair McCormack stated some of the issues that he had was that there was no way to understand
what the applicant wanted to do, he could not understand it. There was a handicapped access in
the wrong place.
Mr. Zimprich began to comment.
Chair McCormack stated to the applicant that he had has his turn to discuss and now it was his
turn and he was going to hold pretty close to that. He commented the handicapped area was not
to code as a person could not be brought around parked cars and those issues that were code
issues were not correct. He pointed to the plans and stated he was reviewing a site plan and it
appeared there was not a landscape plan being presented and Committee Member Cathcart could
attest to that as well. He was not going to comment on the landscape as it appeared to be
landscaped; he pointed out items that were not noted on the plans and it made him think that
what was submitted was not an accurate plan. The applicant needed to get someone to
memorialize what existed and the landscape presented would not work for the site, the whole
edge as presented was a strike three. He needed to review an accurate plan, the DRC was not
even reviewing something, the plan showed proposed, however, it was something that was
existing and it was not correctly noted as existing. His point was that they needed a plan that
was indicative of what was reality.
Mr. Zimprich stated he had just received a final with the City.
Chair McCormack stated he walked it today and it was wrong.
Mr. Zimprich stated that the Chair was telling him that the guys at the City that wrote if off were
wrong.
Planning Manager, Leslie Aranda Roseberry, stated what she believed occurred was that they
were reviewing the landscape plan as being a completely proposed plan and they had reviewed it
as a clean slate. Possibly the applicant could clarify what existed and what was proposed.
Chair McCormack stated he had been to the site and the applicant had a great thing there but he
was totally confused when he visited the site.
Committee Member Gladson stated maybe what the intent was that the applicant wanted to go
with what was currently on the ground.
Mr. Zimprich stated everything that was on the ground he wanted to keep.
Chair McCormack stated that should be memorialized on the plans with the proposal for
anything additional. They could review that and give feedback.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for May 20, 2009
Page 21 of 31
Committee Member Cathcart asked what were the plans supposed to be?
Chair McCormack stated the plans should show accurate existing plantings. The giant Bird of
Paradise and the Ficus were not on the plans and the lights were all inconsistent along the edge
of the plans. When it went past the DRC and there was still inconsistent lighting, whether it was
a good or bad thing from the applicant's point of view, from a design standpoint the white Nellie
Gale lights were not appropriate.
Mr. Zimprich stated he could not do anything with that until he got a permit.
Chair McCormack stated the applicant could propose new lighting with a cut sheet and that
would allow the DRC to review the design. That was his whole point. He wanted the drawings
correct.
Committee Member Cathcart stated that was exactly why he had made a comment about the
Hibiscus heterophelia. If the applicant could find them they would need to be shipped in from
Australia as they could not be found locally and they grew 6' to 9' tall and they would not allow
people to walk through and that type of planting would block views.
Mr. Zimprich stated first of all he would not want people walking through planters.
Committee Member Cathcart stated his point was that it blocked views and it would block the
view for the cars.
Mr. Zimprich stated he understood what he was saying but he had not had such a thing.
Committee Member Cathcart stated it was noted on the plans.
Mr. Zimprich stated he would not have a 12' plant.
Committee Member Cathcart stated it was noted on the plans as proposed.
Committee Member Gladson stated that was where their concerns came from.
Chair McCormack started to say when the Committee Members were in their offices reviewing
the plans; Mr. Zimprich interrupted and stated what should have been noted on the plans was that
there was existing. Chair McCormack had walked the site and the lights could change to match
the other lights.
Mr. Garcia stated it appeared that the applicant's architect had not made the proper changes to
the plans.
Committee Member Gladson stated the architect may have been more on the design side with
proposing things rather than noting existing.
Committee Member Woollett asked the applicant if it was his intention that there would be
changes to the landscape?
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for May 20, 2009
Page 22 of 31
Mr. Zimprich pointed to an area on the plans and stated that area was all brand new.
Chair McCormack stated that he questioned those two areas.
Mr. Garcia stated it was a 30' throat that was required.
Mr. Zimprich stated if they wanted him to get technical, it had been written off without that and
the City stated it had been fine, then the City came back and took it back. They could have told
him to do it initially prior to the project being finalized. He purchased the property for the
parking and to be able to do the expansion. It was creating hardship because he was losing four
more parking spaces. He had not spent a million dollars to have someone say he needed to
reduce the parking.
Chair McCormack stated it was a safety issue. If he could imagine someone moving into the
throat attempting to get out, it became a safety issue coming off of Katella. There was a
visibility issue. He asked about the parking space in the setback?
Mr. Garcia stated it was allowed. In a CR Zone it was prohibited, however, the site was a CP
Zone, Commercial/Professional, and it was permitted.
Chair McCormack stated the applicant could literally take the plants out and park there.
Mr. Garcia stated it was a parking area.
Committee Member Gladson stated the reality was that they had a commercially developed
property and the owner wanted to expand with an addition to the banquet facility and they
wanted additional parking. It was a noble effort and she believed the Committee would want to
encourage that. It was just trying to get to the specific details of how they could get there. The
photos showed essentially an approved parking lot and were there elements that were particularly
bothersome to her - no, were there suggestions after the applicant presented exactly what they
wanted to do -probably, there were experts on the Committee that had insight to that. She had a
few architectural questions.
Chair McCormack stated there was a grade change in an area he pointed to on the plans and he
stated there were a lot of mistakes. Many of the problems were inherited; there could not be a
handicap spot that would cross over a path. The scale was wrong and that worried him. When
measured, the dimensions were all wrong; it had not worked for 3/32, 1/8 or 1/10. He had other
architectural comments and he felt the other Committee Members would have caught what he
caught.
Committee Member Gladson stated she could not understand the use of stucco and CMU.
Mr. Garcia stated it was a courtyard and pointed out the area on the plans.
Committee Member Wheeler stated it would be nice to stucco that area.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for May 20, 2009
Page 23 of 31
Mr. Garcia stated he believed someone had asked about the asphalt area and he stated if the
applicant was to change that out to concrete it would add to the area of changes and trigger water
quality.
Chair McCormack asked how would the applicant deal with the grading issue and the code
requirements.
Mr. Garcia stated in reviewing the plans he had not heard back about any problems. He
reviewed the area with Chair McCormack.
Committee Member Cathcart stated he was not certain what they were supposed to be reviewing,
existing or proposed?
Committee Member Gladson stated the DRC would not want to take action and send the
applicant to the Planning Commission with sloppy plans.
Committee Member Wheeler stated they were as sloppy as they could get. On the building there
were columns that were noted as existing and they were not. In comparing the dimensions of the
columns to the building and what was shown on the section they were totally wrong. On one
section the columns were lined up with the towers and in reviewing the elevations they were not.
It was a very bad set of plans. He suggested that the applicant go back to the architect and
request that he start over.
Chair McCormack pointed out an area on the plans and stated on the east elevation it wrapped
around to the south and then just stopped.
Mr. Zimprich stated the way the building stood it had just the parapet up there and he was not
going to put the on the back of the building.
Chair McCormack asked how he planned on dealing with the proposed roof element as it just
seemed odd?
Committee Member Wheeler stated it was, however, fairly consistent with everything else that
the applicant was doing. On the front elevation the tower was totally left out and the proportions
were terribly bogus and the applicant might suggest that the architect take a photo of the tower
element and import the photo into the drawing. There was a very large problem in comparing
the arches in dimension they were all pretty much the same but the elevation had them in various
sizes and not in relationship to what was on the plan. The Plan and the elevation were two
separate beasts and they needed to be consistent. He stated that what the applicant wanted to
propose was probably going to be great; they just needed to see it.
Chair McCormack stated there were plantings all underneath and he would never use Hardy
Hibiscus and in total shade it would never live and those were the types of things they wanted to
catch.
Mr. Zimprich stated he was hearing that they wanted to see the plants that were there.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for May 20, 2009
Page 24 of 31
Chair McCormack stated the plans presented would be what was proposed.
Mr. Zimprich stated his understanding was to put plants on the plans. His architect put plants on
the plans not really sure of what they were going to use and his understanding when speaking
with Howard Morris, the City's Senior Landscape District Coordinator, he had gotten his
approval to change the Hibiscus to the Lilly of the Nile and the Day Lilly.
Committee Member Wheeler asked if the plantings were existing and they were to remain,
would the plants need to be specifically called out or could the applicant present plans that noted
existing to remain?
Committee Member Cathcart stated that would be okay, they just needed to see a plan.
Mr. Zimprich stated the only new landscape on the plan was in an area he pointed to on the
drawings. There would be some additional Palm trees.
Committee Member Gladson asked what about the tree count?
Committee Member Cathcart stated those of us who dealt with it on a regular basis had issues
with it and they were attempting to put together a formula to be taken to City Staff, but as that
had not been done yet it was up to the applicant to rally for a tree count that would work on the
site.
Committee Member Gladson stated the project was probably going to be continued, she was not
certain where the Committee was headed, and they wanted to understand why the tree count of
40 was what could be done and not the 54 that was required.
Committee Member Cathcart stated in reviewing the distance between the Palms it was so
dramatically different from 20' to 38' and from 18' to 30' and it was not consistent. If they were
wanting a random look that was not bad, however, they were almost set in a regular pattern.
Mr. Zimprich stated there was a driveway and they could not add landscape there.
Chair McCormack stated could they count the required trees, take out that section and come up
with a number for a required tree count. The applicant could count the trees that were on site and
the giant Bird of Paradise could possibly be counted as trees. The street trees would not be
counted. The applicant might only need to add a few more trees to the site.
Mr. Zimprich stated he was now really confused. He was not being asked to do more than what
he had just gotten done with the City. He had spoken with City Staff and had done what they
wanted him to do and now he was hearing that he had to do more.
Committee Member Cathcart stated it appeared it was taken out of context. City Staff had
probably looked at that area not realizing the entire area was going to be reviewed.
Committee Member Woollett stated they were not telling the applicant that he needed more as
they had not calculated the tree count and he might just be fine.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for May 20, 2009
Page 25 of 31
Mr. Zimprich stated he did not want to have a hardship; he already had a hardship with the
parking lot. He bought it and he did what the City told him to do; and now he did not want to
turn around and be told to do something different. He would not know that until he had a tree
count. He paid a million two to have parking stalls and it was all done, completed, and now
there was the potential that he could loose some stalls. Those issues should have been brought
up before. He built afour-story building which the City approved and now the DRC was having
issues with it.
Chair McCormack stated he felt the applicant's frustration. They needed to go through the
proper review and the DRC needed to do what they did or Planning Commission was going to
think they were under the table.
Committee Member Cathcart stated a tree count was needed whether the applicant met it or not
was not the issue. They needed the number in order to discuss whether they could agree on why
the applicant could not meet the tree count. They needed a baseline number.
Chair McCormack stated they were giving him extra tools; the applicant could count the clumps
of giant Bird of Paradise as trees.
Committee Member Gladson stated the Planning Commission would review the parking
situation and there was a certain amount of segmentation that occurred during the review
process. The City would, for example, not be able to give him the green light for any Health
Department issues, but they could give the applicant the green light for the building. The Health
Department could shut the business down due to not meeting their requirements. It was just part
of how the process was. The DRC's goal was attempting to synthesize all of it, to take what the
applicant wanted to do and realistically recognize what it was. The proposed project was an
attempt to make the parking lot better and if they could get a good set of plans she felt the project
would go forward at some point.
Chair McCormack stated in looking at the plans there would never be a Palm tree that close to a
light and those would be things that they would point out to get him to a good project. They
would catch those types of things and suggest changes to assist the applicant in obtaining a better
project.
Committee Member Wheeler stated the building plans needed to be fixed as well.
Mr. Garcia stated the architecture was fine, it was just the internal inconsistencies.
Committee Member Wheeler stated the DRC needed to review what the applicant was wanting
to do; they could not leave it up to interpretive dance.
Chair McCormack stated with some of the grading changes at the entrance a civil plan might
need to be developed.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for May 20, 2009
Page 26 of 31
Committee Member Gladson stated those were some of the items that would come through plan
check and those were some of the things that bothered the DRC a bit, as the project was almost
there and then a change might be needed from an engineering standpoint that would change the
look and could have been an issue for the DRC. They wanted a project on plan that would be the
predictable outcome when completed.
Chair McCormack stated he was ready to make a motion.
Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated in that motion could Chair McCormack specify what type of plan
they wanted to see; if it was a separate landscape plan or if they wanted to see an actual existing
and proposed, to make it clear for everyone on what was being required.
Committee Member Cathcart asked what had Mr. Morris used to approve the landscape and was
there a plan?
Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated he would have reviewed a rendition of what was being presented.
Chair McCormack asked if the plan they were reviewing was a second evolution of a plan that
Mr. Morris already approved?
Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated they had reviewed the plans in various forms at a Staff level.
Chair McCormack stated there would have been a demo plan and probably a civil plan.
Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated they had not needed a civil plan.
Chair McCormack stated it was a hybrid plan. It showed some spot elevations, and architectural
intent, some existing conditions and it was very difficult to figure out.
Committee Member Gladson stated it was probably an attempt by the applicant to keep costs
down to some extent.
Chair McCormack stated it had not worked and many times would end up costing more money.
Committee Member Woollett stated they needed to give the applicant some direction. The DRC
needed to review the new landscaping and they would not need to see the new landscaping and
was that correct?
Chair McCormack stated he wanted to see existing conditions.
Committee Member Cathcart stated and the proposed conditions.
Committee Member Wheeler asked if every plant needed to be identified?
Chair McCormack stated the existing could be identified on the plans as a mass with a notation
of shrubs.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for May 20, 2009
Page 27 of 31
Committee Member Woollett stated he understood that Chair McCormack wanted to review a
preliminary plan; a plan that would outline the shrubs, locate the trees as that needed to be
addressed, and to show very clearly all the parking. If there was an issue regarding handicap
parking those needed to be laid out. With the other lot it could possibly bring up problems with
the handicap spots which may require some restriping.
Chair McCormack stated what it boiled down to and what the DRC generally reviewed was a
plan with existing conditions, which showed the layout and where the landscape was; next, they
needed to see a concept plan which was normally done as an overlay.
Committee Member Woollett stated he understood that the applicant needed to provide an
existing and a proposed plan with a separate plan for landscaping, and a plan without
landscaping. He was attempting to understand if the applicant needed to submit separate
landscaping plans from site plans.
Chair McCormack stated he wanted to review an existing conditions plan that showed landscape,
lights, curb-everything-and then there should be a landscape concept plan.
Mr. Garcia asked if the Chair wanted to see a landscape plan with just existing conditions?
Chair McCormack stated yes.
Committee Member Woollett asked if he wanted to see a separate proposed landscape and a
separate site plan without any landscape?
Chair McCormack stated he wanted to see a plan that showed what was there. To take the
existing conditions plan, screen it back, and add proposed, which would be the second plan.
Committee Member Woollett stated what he understood was the applicant only needed one plan.
Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated what she was hearing was that the applicant needed to submit an
existing conditions plan, that would be one sheet. There would be a second sheet with what was
proposed. The question seemed to be if on the second sheet would all the landscape be included
there or would that need to be a 3`d sheet.
Chair McCormack stated no, just two sheets.
Ms. Aranda Roseberry clarified the applicant needed a plan that showed what was on the ground
currently and a second sheet that showed proposed; a plan that showed what the applicant
wanted to be there when the project was complete. Generally they received a site plan and a
proposed plan, with the proposed including the landscape.
Committee Member Woollett asked if there were things that needed to be removed, would they
want to see that on the 1St plan? Existing as is, with a notation of what was being removed?
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for May 20, 2009
Page 28 of 31
Chair McCormack stated that was a good question; typically there was a civil plan which showed
what was to remain and what was to be demolished. There would be a guy on top of a huge skip
loader with a demo plan and he would work from that.
Mr. Zimprich stated the only thing he would demo would be asphalt.
Committee Member Woollett asked if there was landscape being removed?
Mr. Zimprich stated there was a small planter that would be removed.
Chair McCormack stated the demo plan was a roadmap for the demolition guy to understand
what was to remain and what was to be taken out.
Committee Member Cathcart stated the applicant needed two plans. The proposed could have all
the stuff that existed and would remain.
Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated typically the plans would have a dotted line with what was existing
and what would remain.
Committee Member Woollett stated sometimes it became too cluttered; it depended on the plans.
Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated she understood they wanted two plans; existing and proposed.
Chair McCormack stated the existing plan would be a civil plan, which the demo plan would
evolve from; and then a landscape plan that would evolve as a site plan. There could be another
site plan that showed egress and lighting, all of those types of things, and many times that was
provided as an architectural site plan.
Committee Member Gladson stated that could be combined into a proposed plan.
Committee Member Woollett stated the applicant would not need to call out all the shrubs,
however, the trees would need to be called out.
Mr. Zimprich stated everything on the plans was existing with the exception of an area he
pointed to on the plans. He was not certain what they wanted to see; it was all existing. He
understood all about the Hibiscus word. Why was the landscape an issue? It was all existing
and he stated let's not make it an issue.
Chair McCormack stated they could not do a proper landscape plan without calling out what
existed.
Mr. Zimprich stated Chair McCormack knew what was there.
Chair McCormack stated let's just take the plan off and not submit a plan. Why had the
applicant come up with a plan? The applicant needed to do it right and that was the reason they
were there. The plan presented was absolutely worth nothing.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for May 20, 2009
Page 29 of 31
Mr. Zimprich stated he was hearing one guy say one thing and one guy stated another thing and
they were messing him up.
Committee Member Woollett stated he was hearing contradictions.
Mr. Zimprich stated he was hearing that too.
Committee Member Woollett stated the applicant would not need to call out all the existing
plantings.
Committee Member Cathcart stated on the vacant spots it could be called out as dirt or bark
mulch. If the applicant was going to add mulch further toward the building and clean up the
building it would need to be noted as bark mulch, what existed was dirt and what was proposed
would be mulch.
Chair McCormack stated he would give the applicant a choice to show them what was not
planted or to show them what was planted. If he showed neither it meant nothing was planted.
The plan was not worth anything, it was not correct.
Committee Member Cathcart stated it was as simple as what existed and what was proposed.
Committee Member Gladson stated they were adding the building addition and if he had not
wanted to change anything else that was fine.
Mr. Zimprich stated it was all documented. If the City wrote off on it, then it was correct.
Committee Member Woollett stated if they issued a plan that showed what existed and the City
went out to enforce that plan, they would need to have those things changed by the applicant to
meet the plan and that was not what the applicant wanted to do.
Mr. Zimprich stated he agreed. He knew what they wanted.
Chair McCormack made a motion to continue DRC No. 4419-09, CUP No. 2751-09, MNSP No.
0599-09, & AA No. 173-09, Villa Park Catering, to request that the applicant return with an
existing and a proposed plan to include landscape, parking, and building.
Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated they were requesting a proposed plan that would include not only
the landscape, but the parking, and the building. It would be a very typically existing site and
proposed site plan.
Committee Member Cathcart stated it all needed to be accurate.
Committee Member Wheeler stated that applied to the architecture as well.
Chair McCormack asked the applicant if he understood?
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for May 20, 2009
Page 30 of 31
Mr, Zimprich stated he had and he wanted them to understand his frustration. He wanted to add
three walls to make everything look right on Katella. He had been in business in Orange for 27
years, however, when he had gotten certain things completed and now he was told he needed to
change things it was very frustrating.
Committee Member Cathcart stated it should never have been piece-mealed and he would not
have been in that position.
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 May 20, 2009
Page 31 of 31
ADJOURNMENT:
Committee Member Woollett made a motion to adjourn to the next regular scheduled meeting on
June 3, 2009 at 5:00 p.m. The meeting adjourned at 7:31 p.m.
SECOND: Adrienne Gladson
AYES: Bill Cathcart, Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED,