07-15-2009 DRC MinutesCITY OF ORANGE
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
MINUTES -FINAL
July 15, 2009
Committee Members Present: Bill Cathcart
Adrienne Gladson
Craig Wheeler
Joe Woollett
Committee Members Absent: Tim McCormack
Staff in Attendance: Ed Knight, Assistant Community Development Director
Dan Ryan, Historic Preservation Planner
Robert Garcia, Associate Planner
Sonal Thakur, Assistant Planner
Diane Perry, Recording Secretary
Administrative Session - 5:00 P.M.
The Committee met for an Administrative Session beginning at 5:12 p.m.
Vice Chair Gladson opened the Administrative Session with any information from Staff.
Assistant Community Development Director, Ed Knight, stated there were no changes to the
Agenda and nothing further to add.
The Committee Members reviewed the minutes from the regular scheduled meeting of July 1,
2009. Changes and corrections were noted.
Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to adjourn the Administrative Session.
SECOND: Bill Cathcart
AYES: Bill Cathcart, Adrienne Gladson, Joe Woollett, Craig Wheeler
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Tim McCormack
MOTION CARRIED.
Administrative Session adjourned at 5: 25 p.m.
Regular Session - 5:30 P.M.
ROLL CALL:
Tim McCormack was absent.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for July 15, 2009
Page 2 of 18
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:
Opportunity for members of the public to address the Design Review Committee on
matters not listed on the Agenda.
There was none.
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: July 1, 2009
Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve the minutes from the regular Design
Review Committee Meeting of July 1, 2009, with corrections and changes noted.
SECOND: Bill Cathcart
AYES: Bill Cathcart, Adrienne Gladson, Joe Woollett, Craig Wheeler
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Tim McCormack
MOTION CARRIED.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for July 15, 2009
Page 3 of 18
AGENDA ITEMS:
Continued Items:
2) DRC No. 4364-08 - IRV SEAVER BMW
A proposal for landscaping improvements related to the expansion of an existing
motorcycle dealership.
607 W. Katella Avenue
Staff Contact: Robert Garcia, 714-744-7231, r~arcia(a~cit, of~ge.or~
Landscape Improvements Continued from DRC Meeting of April 15, 2009
DRC Action: Final Determination
Committee Member Cathcart recused himself from this Agenda item as he was the landscape
architect on the proposed project.
Associate Planner, Robert Garcia, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report.
Applicant, Evan Bell, address on file, stated if the trees were required in front of the showroom
windows they would block the view of the showroom and the signs that were required to be
displayed on the building by the BMW Corporation. It would cut the visibility of the outdoor
displays. The lawn, in an area he pointed out on the plans, was 11' wide in that area with the
portico hanging out 6' from the building, and to plant trees in that area at maturity would take up
the space and the trees would need to be planted 3' from the sidewalk. Those trees would need
to be kept trimmed at 10' tall for signage and window visibility. He felt having trees in the front
area of the project would not work well and they would be too close to the building and block
visibility and the display window. With the "cookie-cutter" rule on the trees, there was a perfect
example of what was happening at Taco Bell, their signs were not even visible. He asked if the
City would be doing the business a favor by requiring trees in the front of a building where they
would be displaying merchandise in order to make a living? The other point he wanted to bring
up was that the number of trees specified would be 28; however, given the west property line
situation and the length of the building on that side, he had understood that the calculation, as
they had spoken about cutting that area in half, should come to 14 trees. For some reason Staff
had come up with 19 trees instead of 14 trees. If he was to eliminate the six trees at the front of
the building and the two trees (he pointed to on the plans) and replace them with Cypress trees
that would allow the visibility he needed. He asked if that would be acceptable by the DRC as
an alternative plan?
Vice Chair Gladson stated that would be something the DRC could discuss and she asked if there
was anything further from the applicant or the applicant's representative?
Jon Califf, Architect, address on file, stated he felt it was fairly simple as the variety of trees that
had been chosen were more of a smaller tree and not large canopy trees. It was an issue in the
front of the building, even with the high speeds that were traveled on Katella. It was not that
easy to catch the sign on the building. He pointed to areas on the plans that would accommodate
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for July 15, 2009
Page 4 of 18
trees to meet the tree requirement and compromise for the signage and visibility. Mr. Bell knew
his business and his customers and what would work.
Mr. Bell stated they were located on Katella Avenue due to the high traffic count. They had
moved from a higher traffic area that had been on Main Street in Santa Ana. To plant trees in
front of the showroom windows and signs, would not work for his business; he wanted to expand
and grow his business.
Public Comment
None.
Vice Chair Gladson opened the item for discussion.
Committee Member Woollett asked if the applicant was stating that he had submitted a plan that
he was not in favor of?
Mr. Bell stated they were attempting to fit 19 trees on the property. The only way to
accommodate that number would be to plant in front of the showroom.
Committee Member Woollett stated he understood the applicant had not agreed with the plans as
submitted.
Mr. Bell stated that was correct; he had not agreed with planting the trees in front. He saw no
reason to plant trees at the front of the building. He would be agreeable to plant trees along the
side areas.
Committee Member Woollett stated if the applicant was not in favor of the proposed plans he
would not want to act on those plans. He would want to continue the project to allow the
applicant to submit a plan that the applicant could support; otherwise, he felt it was a waste of his
time.
Mr. Bell stated he thought he had been requested to have a landscape architect draw up plans
with 19 trees. He had understood it had been changed from 28 trees to 14 trees; all he was
asking was to remove six trees from the front and add three trees in the corner.
Committee Member Woollett stated he would not discuss that with the applicant. They were
dealing with fundamentals and he understood that the law required 28 trees and they had looked
at the project previously and knew that it had not made sense for the project. The building sat
right on the property line and no trees could be planted there. If they could not substantiate what
they agreed on, that could be precedent-setting and create problems on other projects in the
future. Other applicants would come forward not wanting to meet the tree requirements and the
DRC had to be very careful in what they agreed on. The particular trees the landscape architect
had selected on the plans were all small trees and also ones, from the photos, that were single
stem trees. He had driven by the applicant's business a number of times and the Irv Seaver sign
was very clear and that was all he ever saw and the motorcycles parked out front. Attempting to
look into the display windows as he drove by was nearly impossible. The fact that the windows
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for July 15, 2009
Page 5 of 18
were there was an inviting feature; however, there was no way he could look into the windows as
he drove by. The concern was that the trees not conceal the signs in anyway, and it appeared to
him from the plans, that the trees selected were a type that would never conceal the signs. The
base of the foliage would be above the height of a motorcycle and those would be visible. He
was having some trouble understanding the applicant's argument as it had not fit into what had
been submitted. He heard the applicant loud and clear, but that was not how the City functioned,
it was not the rule. The DRC needed to deal with the rules.
Mr. Bell stated what he had understood was that there needed to be plans drawn up with 19 trees
and the reasons why those 19 trees on his site would not work. That was his understanding from
the previous meeting and from what was sent to him in the mail.
Committee Member Woollett stated if the applicant presented a plan and they stated there was a
visibility issue that only meant that the trees had been placed in the wrong place. The trees
needed to be moved.
Mr. Bell pointed out an area that the trees could be moved to on the plans.
Committee Member Woollett asked why trees could not be planted in an area he pointed to on
the plans?
Mr. Bell stated that was a display area.
Committee Member Wheeler stated that area he referred to was called out as bark mulch and
asked if motorcycles were displayed on that area?
Mr. Bell stated that was concrete and clarified the area that Committee Member Wheeler spoke
about. He pointed out the existing landscape areas, and noted an area that trees could not be
planted in, as it would obscure visibility for people turning onto the road. He would be replacing
the signs with new corporate signs and he understood there were rules that governed the signage
placement. He would be moving the sign closer to the building.
Vice Chair Gladson stated she concurred with Committee Member Woollett's observations. She
had not understood what he was attempting.
Mr. Bell stated that was what he had understood from the previous meeting. That he needed to
prepare a plan and explain why it would not work for his business.
Vice Chair Gladson stated the meeting minutes reflected that the applicant had to meet the City
Code for landscape requirements. The rules were the rules. There was the ability for the DRC to
review the requirements and to make adjustments based on an argument that landscaping in a
specific area would not work. During the previous meeting they had discussed allowing the
applicant credit for the physical constraints that were part of the property, however, that had not
meant that the applicant would not need to plant trees.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for July I5, 2009
Page 6 of 18
Mr. Bell stated he would have trees, but not in the front area that he pointed to on the plans. He
could plant two/three trees in an area he pointed to on the plans and there would be trees on the
side. The 19 trees had not made sense, as the rules called for 28 trees.
Committee Member Wheeler stated he had not remembered the exact numbers, but in the case of
the applicant's building where it was built to the property line and would not accommodate any
plantings there, they had deducted that length twice from the formula. Staff used that calculation
to come up with a tree count. That calculation came up with 19 trees, which he felt was a very
fair approach. He suggested moving some of the trees, to an area he pointed to on the plans. He
thought the applicant might want to use something other than the Crape myrtle, such as a King or
Queen palm tree, which would lessen the visibility issue.
Vice Chair Gladson stated if the DRC were to take action on the proposed project, based on the
number of times they had reviewed it and the fact that the applicant was not in support of the
landscape plan; she would want to deny it and start all over again. She was sensitive to possibly
allowing the applicant to come up with another scheme. She was not in a position to support
having no trees in the front, and could not give the applicant relief from the revised requirement
of under 19. If they took the six trees out of the front, that would drop the tree count to 13, and
she could not be in support of that.
Mr. Bell stated his understanding was that the two sides of the building were not included in the
tree requirement and it had cut the requirement in half. Those two sides of the building would
not accommodate tree plantings. He understood that the requirement had been 28, and half of 28
was 14 and he had looked at it based on that number. He would deduct one from an area he
pointed to on the plans.
Committee Member Wheeler stated he understood the calculation to not be at half of the
requirement. The DRC had taken into consideration the side of the building that there could not
be trees planted on based on the building's property line. There was nothing in the City
requirements that addressed that problem. When there was a driveway along such a property line
that area had been worked into the calculation for the tree requirement. The DRC felt the
applicant's property was unique and that they could be a bit creative in what they had come up
with.
Mr. Bell stated he felt the City had not wanted him to expand or build and he thanked the DRC.
Committee Member Woollett stated they had not wanted to set a precedent in that an applicant
could come to the City and not want to meet a requirement and they would just allow that to
happen.
Mr. Bell stated he would just not expand his business.
Vice Chair Gladson stated she was attempting to come up with a logical analogy.
Mr. Bell stated there was not one. For one year he had been fooling around and had spent
80,000.00 attempting to comply with the City's rules and if it had not made sense for him to
remain in business, to make a living and expand his business in the City of Orange, then maybe
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for July 15, 2009
Page 7 of 18
he should not build the project and that was what it amounted to. It made no sense that for a few
trees; he had come up with a logical way to comply with the requirement, and now the DRC
stated that it had not fit their cookie-cutter rule.
Vice Chair Gladson stated it had not had anything to do with acookie-cutter approach; actually
they were reviewing a tailored way of reviewing the applicant's project and finding an
appropriate way to work with the requirement. They had reviewed projects like churches and the
CHOC Hospital and from all gamuts of the community and they all had to meet the code.
Mr. Bell stated across the street from his house they had just leveled 10 acres of lawn area and
replaced it with a parking lot; they took out trees and he had not seen a City inspector yet.
Vice Chair Gladson stated that property owner would need to come before the DRC or to the
City if they wanted to improve that area.
Mr. Bell stated no, they would not. They just moved in. It was a school and he understood they
played by different rules.
Vice Chair Gladson stated the reality was that they had to work within the requirements. They
wanted his business to remain in Orange; to be successful and to complete the expansion. They
had approved the expansion and bifurcated the landscape plan.
Committee Member Wheeler stated he felt the item should be continued to allow the applicant to
think about the plans some more and to come up with a creative way to design it.
Mr. Califf asked if the applicant would be agreeable to using Palm trees?
Mr. Bell stated there was 6' from the sidewalk; the general rule was that the diameter of the tree
should be the distance that the tree should be planted from the building and that would place the
tree 3' from the sidewalk.
Committee Member Wheeler stated he felt that would not apply with a Palm tree. The foliage of
the Palm tree would be above the building.
Mr. Califf stated the trees could be closer to the sidewalk.
Mr. Bell stated he personally felt there should not be any Palm trees planted in the county. If
there was not a way to get around not planting trees in front of the showroom windows and to
have his building not be a good motorcycle visibility building for display he would not build.
Committee Member Woollett made a motion to continue the project.
Mr. Bell stated he would just not build. He asked if the Committee could approve his project as
presented and then he could take that back and decide if he wanted to do it or not. He was tired
of the Committee.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for July 15, 2009
Page 8 of 18
Committee Member Wheeler asked if they could approve as presented or approve with changes
in the types and placement of trees, as long as the tree requirement was met?
Mr. Bell stated he wanted to clarify that the requirement stated he had to have 28 trees, and the
ruling that he was told that took the two sides of the un-plantable portions of his building out of
the calculation, had cut the requirement down to half. He was sent correspondence from Staff
that stated the required number of trees was 28, however, given the location and the
circumstances with the west property line the tree count had gone to 19. He had understood that
it was half of the requirement, which should have been 14.
Vice Chair Gladson stated she would be more inclined to have the applicant meet with Staff to
gain clarification on the tree count calculation and she believed it was a misunderstanding on
how that formula had been arrived at.
Mr. Bell stated he had lived in the City since about 1942 and he had not remembered ever voting
for the tree law the City had.
Vice Chair Gladson stated it would not have been a public vote, but rather a City Council action
that had been done 20-30 years ago.
Committee Member Woollett made a motion to approve the landscape improvements for DRC
No. 4364-08, Irv Seaver BMW, as presented and subject to the conditions contained in the Staff
Report, and to also allow the applicant to develop an alternative plan with a change in the tree
type for the trees along Katella Avenue and to relocate the trees along the frontage. Changes
would not need to return to the DRC.
SECOND: Adrienne Gladson
AYES: Adrienne Gladson, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Tim McCormack
RECUSED: Bill Cathcart
MOTION CARRIED.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for July 15, 2009
Page 9 of 18
New Agenda Items:
3) DRC No. 4423-09 -QUALITY SUITES FA~'ADE REMODEL
A proposal to remodel the facade of an existing leasing office building associated with a
motel.
3101 W. Chapman Avenue
Staff Contact: Sonal Thakur, 714-744-7239, sthakur(a~cityoforange.org
DRC Action: Final Determination
Assistant Planner, Sonal Thakur, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report.
Applicant, Mark Raber, address on file, stated they would be bringing out the front entry a little
bit, to give it a bigger front entry. The inside wall would be brought out 8' to create a new entry
and to remove the false gables. He pointed out on the plans the areas that would be changed. He
also pointed out the color scheme that they proposed.
Applicant, Sue Lee, address on file, stated they would be making changes in the color to identify
the lobby from the rest of the building, to allow patrons upon entering the property to be able to
identify where the lobby was.
Public Comment
None.
Vice Chair Gladson opened the item for discussion.
Committee Member Woollett stated it seemed to him when he went through the project it was
different than when he had previously gone through there, and he asked if there had been another
remodel?
Mr. Raber stated there had been a stair upgrade.
Ms. Lee stated there had been a renovation to the stairway to meet code. There had been foam
trim added to the fascia in January.
Committee Member Wheeler commented re: the drawings, if the two gables were removed the
applicant would end up with a situation where an area (he pointed to on the plans) was 4' back
from another plane. There would need to be another piece of roofing added; he asked the
applicant if additional roofing was proposed?
Mr. Raber stated yes, there would be additional roofing and he pointed to that detail on the
drawings.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for July 15, 2009
Page 10 of 18
Committee Member Wheeler stated he could not find that detail on the roof plan and the roof
plans had not matched what existed. He pointed out the discrepancies on the drawings.
Mr. Raber stated that was probably an oversight on their part. Committee Member Wheeler
reviewed the roof plans with him.
Committee Member Wheeler stated that an elevation on the plans noted a wing that lined up to a
back face and on the floor plan it showed the wing lining up with the building and not the
recessed gable. He felt the elevation was wrong. He noted other discrepancies; columns that
were missing and stated it was difficult to determine what they wanted to do from the drawings.
Another item that confused him was that the chimney appeared to be projected and it was not.
Mr. Raber stated it was at an angle, and pointed that out on the drawings.
Committee Member Wheeler stated the planes appeared to be one plane and turned at an angle
and went back in.
Mr. Raber stated it went to an angle then turned back to a plane he pointed to on the plans.
Committee Member Wheeler stated no, it was one continuous plane; there was no line there
without a division. The barge board wrapped slightly over the end of it, but there was not a
break there.
Ms. Lee stated there was an angle there and it was divided.
Committee Member Wheeler discussed the corrections that needed to be made to the drawings.
He stated his first problem was that the drawings needed some work. They needed to be cleaned
up and there needed to be a roof plan that reflected actuality. His second problem was the
design. One of the things the DRC was required to do in their findings was that the design had
an internally consistent integrated design theme and to him it had not done that. The proposed
changes consisted of new elements that had not occurred anywhere else in the project. There
were all these new things; intricate moldings that went in weird angles, the canopy, false
windows, the columns, and arches. The arches were different sizes and there was no real
symmetry or consistency and the arch had not carried around the corner. There was a decorative
ornament, some sort of large fancy light fixture, and there was so much stuff that was different.
His feeling was that the proposed project needed to be simplified. It was the entry and the focal
point of the project and the applicant should be able to do something different. He suggested that
they add some new elements and colors to make it special, and to concentrate on those things and
not attempt to add all the different elements to the proposed project.
Ms. Lee stated they added the canopy and anticipated adding canopies to the other buildings and
it would tie into what they were adding. The future plan would be to have a canopy on each
building.
Committee Member Wheeler asked if there was something they could add on the drawings to
establish that those changes would happen?
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for July 15, 2009
Page 11 of 18
Ms. Lee stated yes. They were still constructing the inside and developing everything on the
other building. The particular design of the canopy would be added to the other buildings. She
had not wanted the structure to appear as a big chimney without any architectural design; it
would appear so plain. They could tailor it down; she could speak with the architect about the
design.
Committee Member Wheeler suggested that the design be simplified and cleaned up, and to add
only a few entry elements.
Vice Chair Gladson stated she concurred with Committee Member Wheeler; it was too busy and
there was too much going on. It was a good point to add attention to the lobby area to direct
patrons, but she had difficulty making a finding that the design was internally consistent with
anything else on the property.
Ms. Lee stated the look of the whole property was what the DRC should consider; they were
attempting a French design. It would have all the curves and architectural molding and designs.
She could see their point on some of the features.
Vice Chair Gladson asked for some clarification on the honey color they proposed to use. The
colors had not given her too much of a problem.
Ms. Lee stated that color had been discussed between her and the architect and it would be used
only for the trim.
Ms. Thakur stated that was not what had been presented.
Ms. Lee stated they would not use that color for the body of the property and she pointed out the
color they proposed on the color samples she presented.
Ms. Thakur stated the honey color had been called out on the plans.
Ms. Lee asked Ms. Thakur if she had received the revised color palette proposal?
Mr. Raber stated they had originally had the honey color on the fascia, but they had changed
their color placements.
Vice Chair Gladson stated the current discussion had her feeling that there were still issues that
needed to be worked out.
Ms. Thakur stated one of the main concerns from Staff, regardless of what color they used, was
the color they proposed on the remodel stopped abruptly and had not continued onto any other
areas of the building.
Committee Member Wheeler stated he was opposed to the color just stopping.
Committee Member Woollett asked if there was any honey color currently on the building?
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for July 15, 2009
Page 12 of 18
Ms. Thakur stated no.
Ms. Lee stated the building had not been painted yet. There was a sand color and there was dark
brown, but the honey color had not existed on the building.
Ms. Thakur asked if the applicant was considering using a color that appeared on the apartment
complex across the street?
Committee Member Woollett stated he had not seen the colors in the photos that he had recalled
seeing on that location. There were two red colors and as he came around there was a much
more yellow color.
Ms. Thakur stated the only thing she had seen that was close to that color was on the apartments.
Committee Members Woollett and Cathcart stated they concurred with the comments made by
Committee Member Wheeler.
Committee Member Wheeler stated they needed to simplify and he reviewed his suggestions
with the applicants.
Mr. Raber asked if the DRC would want to see the future canopy additions on the next
submittal?
Ms. Lee stated those would be added within three months, before the end of November. They
owned the property; the only expenses were the remodeling and it had taken a lot of time for the
approvals on the front. The height of the hotel business was June and July. They had not wanted
to start any construction until after Labor Day. By that time they could order the canopy or
awnings for the rest of the project. The renovation was costing $3,000,000 and they were paying
cash for everything.
Vice Chair Gladson stated the changes to the building would be great and she would be
supportive of the applicant pursuing that. Changing the gables had not troubled her; she wanted
the plans to depict everything they wanted to do. The plans should be nice and simple, and it
would probably be something that would have her support.
Ms. Lee stated she would want to address the landscaping with the DRC. They had hired a
landscape architect. She was also being asked by her sign contacts when her sign would be
started, but they could not give them a time frame without all the other things being approved.
Ms. Thakur stated Staff had nothing on their sign information and if the applicant wanted that to
be approved they would need to submit their specifications.
Ms. Lee stated Choice International Hotels had their own sign vendor for that and it was out of
their jurisdiction. She had wanted to use a local vendor.
Committee Member Woollett made a motion to continue DRC No. 4423-09, Quality Suites
Facade Remodel, with the suggestions and recommendations provided to the applicants.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for July 15, 2009
Page 13 of 18
SECOND: Bill Cathcart
AYES: Bill Cathcart, Adrienne Gladson, Joe Woollett, Craig Wheeler
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Tim McCormack
MOTION CARRIED.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for July 15, 2009
Page 14 of 18
4) DRC No. 4429-09 - CIBOLA SYSTEMS
A proposal to remodel an existing non-contributing industrial building, including
landscape and site improvements.
180 S. Cypress Street & 527 W. Almond Avenue, Old Towne Historic District
Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, 714-744-7224, dr~an(a~cityoforan~e.org
DRC Action: Final Determination
Historic Preservation Planner, Dan Ryan, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff
Report.
Applicant, Susan Secoy Jensen, address on file, stated she was the architect on the project and
also introduced the Landscape Architect, Paul Danel, who had worked with the business owner.
The business owner was featured in Orange County Metro as one of the best companies to work
for. They had started out more ambitious with the design and had refined things to work within
the business owner's budget, who was applying for a SBA Loan. It was an $800,000 investment
as far as the improvements went; that would entail cleaning up the property. She had initially
designed a more elaborate lobby and clear story glass, and none of that would be occurring.
They would be repairing what existed and the landscape would be enhanced. The color scheme
was very simple, using galvanized metal and working with the red brick. They would be keeping
it monochromatic and just cleaning up the property. She presented photos to the Committee to
review. They were excited to get going on the project. They had the neighbors on board and had
explained to them from the beginning what they were doing. Initially, senior housing had been
wanted for that area, and after expressing what they were proposing, everyone had concurred it
was a good thing.
Landscape Architect, Paul Danel, address on file, stated as far as the landscaping was concerned,
they would be replacing portions of the existing concrete with interlocking pavers. Referring to
areas on the plans, they would be eliminating some asphalt and keeping existing concrete areas
for truck access. The landscaping would be redone in the front of the building to compliment the
street trees. They would be replacing a tree that was in poor shape and matching the Camphor
trees. There would be green screening along the streetscape to screen the wrought iron. The
interior areas would incorporate natural grasses and low water plantings. There would be water
harvesting tanks installed under the decks and they would be tapping into the large warehouse
that could fill up with over 1,800 gallons of rain water and they would be able to use that for
their watering. The courtyards would be private, but pleasing to the street line.
Ms. Secoy Jensen stated they were going for LEED Certification on their project. They had so
many things going for it already: the location was near public transportation, bike riding, and
they would be recycling. They would be using the corrugated metal from one building and using
it for some repairs on the other building.
Mr. Danel stated they would be using piping to make vine trellises and everything they could to
keep everything on site, instead of taking those things to a land fill. In replacing the parking lot
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for July 15, 2009
Page 15 of 18
they would not be taking all the asphalt out. They would be doing an overlay on some of the
asphalt areas.
Committee Member Woollett asked for additional information on the overlay.
Mr. Danel stated there were specifications for overlaying pavers on top of asphalt and much of
the asphalt would not need to be removed. They would save money on demolition. The
standard elevations would be for 4" and 6" and he only needed 4" for the pavers.
Committee Member Wheeler stated there would not be permeability for the water.
Mr. Danel stated that would be one downfall; the specifications would call for drainage along the
border areas. There would be screen trees in the back, along the railroad tracks. The courtyard
would be a great look for the business and surrounding areas.
Committee Member Cathcart stated he felt the variety of the plant material was excellent. He
suggested looking into using Rotundaloba instead of Palo Alto for Liquidamber.
Public Comment
None.
Vice Chair Gladson opened the item for discussion.
Committee Member Cathcart stated he would hate to see the proposed project marred by the
Liquid Amber balls and he would also suggest when they got down to details to look at root
barriers. He suggested panel barriers next to the hardscape areas and particularly around the
Liquid Amber. He suggested using the Indian variety of Crape Myrtle, as they were mildew-
resistant. He asked how they planned on containing the Golden Bamboo?
Mr. Danel stated it would be planted in a contained area that would be bordered by concrete and
pathways.
Committee Member Cathcart asked if that would be at an extended depth in that area?
Mr. Danel stated in the past he had always used root barriers around them to contain that
planting. It would be in a contained area and would not travel anywhere. He felt the use of that
element would be a good screen between the parking lot and the building.
Committee Member Wheeler stated there was acall-out for the wrought iron fencing that had the
curved element and he asked if they had looked at other possibilities? He had used a metal mesh
material on a project that was un-climbable and was used a lot in Disneyland and was very nice
looking.
Ms. Secoy Jensen stated they would certainly be open to that. She had met with the gate
contractor and he was just in the infancy of putting together numbers and proposals and they
could look at alternate proposals.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for July 15, 2009
Page 16 of 18
Committee Member Wheeler stated he had not liked the fencing that ran along the front of Fred
Kelly Field, it looked like suicide fencing. The mesh material looked much better and there was
not enough room to place your feet into it.
Ms. Secoy Jensen stated she spoke from experience and there was an issue with the area and they
needed some type of fencing there.
Committee Member Wheeler stated the applicant could probably justify removing the very
historic trees along the side and he asked the applicant if they needed to remove the trees from an
area he pointed to on the plans?
Mr. Danel stated there were very large Ficas trees that were damaging the area and there had
been some lifting; personally, he wanted to take those out to keep from any future sidewalk
damage or tripping issues. There was one Canary Island Palm which he found unsightly; it was a
rat's nest and there were seed droppings.
Committee Member Wheeler asked if the wire mesh on the windows would be removed?
Ms. Secoy Jensen stated that would be removed and the glass would be repaired. The exterior
would have a clean, historic glass element and the frames would be a charcoal color. The
interior would have an anti-theft device.
Committee Member Wheeler asked if the history department of the Orange Library would want
photo documentation of the project?
Mr. Ryan stated that was a good idea.
Vice Chair Gladson stated the Staff Report noted that the project exceeded the area for the
landscape requirement, and the first application they had reviewed was all about the tree
numbers; she wanted clarification on whether the proposed project was okay with the code or
had it applied to the project before them?
Mr. Ryan stated the question being was there a nexus between improvements that required an
upgrade of all the landscaping. There was no additional square footage being added and they
were mostly doing tenant improvements. Staff felt there was not a nexus for bringing the entire
site up to code. The fact that they were improving the islands and landscaping the other features,
Staff felt it was an excellent suggestion in improving the entire site. Staff could not have
required the applicant to go as far as they had on the improvements. They were attempting to
meet code, but were going beyond what the City would have asked for.
Vice Chair Gladson stated on the fencing they would be removing the razor wire and chain link,
and she asked if there were areas that would remain?
Ms. Secoy Jensen stated some areas would remain. There was a gate and another gate would be
added to an area she pointed to on the plans.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for July 15, 2009
Page 17 of 18
Vice Chair Gladson stated she reviewed the roof plan and it appeared that everything was
screened.
Ms. Secoy Jensen stated there was screening. The mechanical equipment would remain and be
screened.
Committee Member Wheeler asked if there would be a signage package presented at a later date?
Ms. Secoy Jensen stated her client had not wanted any signage, they were a destination business.
Vice Chair Gladson asked which one of the trees had not had a grate on it?
Mr. Danel pointed out which trees had grates on the streetscape.
Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve DRC No. 4429-09, Cibola Systems,
with the conditions contained in the Staff Report and with the additional conditions:
1. The applicant prepare a historic photo documentation of the building for the Orange
Public Library.
2. Use Rotundaloba species for the Liquidamber trees and the Indian variety for the Crape
Myrtle.
SECOND: Joe Woollett
AYES: Bill Cathcart, Adrienne Gladson, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Tim McCormack
MOTION CARRIED.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for July 15, 2009
Page 18 of 18
ADJOURNMENT:
Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to adjourn to the next regular scheduled meeting on
August 5, 2009 at 5:00 p.m. The meeting adjourned at 6:57 p.m.
SECOND: Joe Woollett
AYES: Bill Cathcart, Adrienne Gladson, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett
NOES:None
ABSTAIN:None
ABSENT:Tim McCormack
MOTION CARRIED.