Loading...
2013-11-06 DRC Final MinutesCITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES - FINAL November 6, 2013 Committee Members Present: Tim McCormack Carol Fox Robert Imboden Craig Wheeler Joe Woollett Committee Members Absent: None Staff in Attendance: David Khorram, Chief Building Official Anna Pehoushek, Principal Planner Diane Perry, Recording Secretary Administrative Session – 5:00 P.M. Chair Fox opened the Administrative Session at 5:10 p.m. and stated there were no minutes to review. Anna Pehoushek, Principal Planner, clarified for the Committee Members that the booklet they received today was the actual sign packet in booklet form; the plans contained the same information. There was discussion among the Committee Members and Ms. Pehoushek about what they received in their DRC packet. They also received clarification from Ms. Pehoushek about the “lifestyle” graphic included in the Packet. David Khorram, Chief Building Official, stated there was no further Policy/Procedural information. Committee Member Fox stated she would like to discuss ways of trying to reduce the minute length/content that were transcribed from each meeting. There was discussion among the Committee Members that the minutes could be shortened if summarized correctly and succinctly. They all agreed it was important for the minutes to reflect details if the project was going on to the Planning Commission or if the project was continued or denied. The Committee Members agreed the “final action” was the most important detail. Chair Fox stated she would volunteer to take on the task of reviewing minutes from a past meeting and try to find a solution for shortening the minutes. She would bring it back later for Committee discussion. Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to adjourn the Administrative Session of the Design Review Committee meeting. City of Orange – Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for November 6, 2013 Page 2 of 10 SECOND: Robert Imboden AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. Administrative Session adjourned at 5:30 p.m. Regular Session - 5:30 P.M. ROLL CALL: All Committee 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 were no speakers. CONSENT ITEMS: None City of Orange – Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for November 6, 2013 Page 3 of 10 AGENDA ITEMS: Continued Items: None New Agenda Items: (2) DRC No. 4652-12 – AMLI RESIDENTIAL-UPTOWN ORANGE A proposal to redevelop an existing surface parking lot with a new 334-unit apartment complex and two abutting 7-level parking structures. The applicant is requesting approval of a sign program, and the final landscape and lighting plans for Phase 2 of the project, which consists of construction of the apartments. 3537 The City Way Staff Contact: Anna Pehoushek, (714) 744-7228 Previous DRC Review: February 6, 2013 DRC Action: Final Determination The applicants introduced themselves: Jason Armison, Vice President-AMLI; Nate Carlson, AMLI; Mark Hickner, KTGY; Michael Schrock and Michael Knight, Urban Arena, landscape architects; Gary Underwood, Design Factor, signage consultant; and Randy Moss, lighting designer; all addresses on file. Principal Planner, Anna Pehoushek, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. She stated this project was approved by the Planning Commission on March 4, 2013 and was now back for DRC final approval of the signage, final landscaping and lighting plans for Phase 2 of the project. Ms. Pehoushek stated that the “lifestyle” marketing graphic sign was inadvertently left out of the sign program and asked that the DRC add a condition of approval requiring submission of the revised sign program that included this graphic. She went on to summarize what the modifications and refinements were to the landscape plan. She also stated since distribution of the DRC Packet, Staff had met with the Fire Department regarding Fire Department lettering requirements in the landscape plans and that the applicant would be discussing some adjustments to that requirement during the meeting. Mr. Armison stated this was the fourth time in front of the DRC; the project remained largely the same with the exterior landscaping, but with a few refinements to the interior courtyards. Public Comments: None. Chair Fox opened the item to the Committee for discussion. She suggested reviewing the items in the order as shown in the Staff Report: signage, electrical, then landscaping. Chair Fox commented that the courtyards were already designed very well and didn’t think they would need any further discussion; she was mainly concerned about the periphery of the project and entry points. City of Orange – Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for November 6, 2013 Page 4 of 10 Committee Member Wheeler confirmed with the applicant, referencing sheet 9of the plans, signs S4 & S5, that there would not be any exposed raceways. He recommended that the DRC make this a condition of approval. Committee Member Woollett stated the applicant did a great job on this project. Committee Member McCormack commented that the signage worked well with the landscape tree placements; however, he asked for clarification of the sign lighting, if it was not lit or was it internally lit. Mr. Underwood explained that the blade signs, monument sign, and all the project identification signage are internally-illuminated; the faces are okay as it’s only the lettering that lights. Regarding the blade signs and the monument sign adjacent to the leasing center, even though the faces light up it’s only the push-thru. He went on to explain that the opaque faces have a ½ inch acrylic pushing through; they will use frosted acrylic so it will glow and give it the appearance of a “halo” effect This was a recent change because of the concerns of the residents in those areas and would be less obtrusive. Chair Fox confirmed with Mr. Underwood that the white lettering would be opaque white. Mr. Underwood continued explaining about the lighting details and effects. The graphic solution was to make this look like two colors on a medium color background. They could use the “day- night” acrylic that appears dark gray in the daytime and lights up like a “milky dirty white.” This detail, plus the sensitivity to the residents, means that there are opaque overlays that are really white and dark gray which gives off a very elegant soft glow at night. Committee Member McCormack, referencing the plans-sheet S9, confirmed with Mr. Underwood that the material being used for the “lifestyle” signage/graphic would be a digital print. Mr. Underwood stated that the graphic wasn’t designed yet and not part of this submittal. Committee Member Imboden asked if the “lifestyle” graphic was not a part of this approval, why did the Staff Report reflect the “lifestyle” sign height of 30-feet x 12-feet. Ms. Pehoushek replied the sign would be perpendicular to the street and inset to the entry to the parking structure. Mr. Armison stated it’s an internal/interior sign on the parking structure. The intent was for it to be a marketing graphic There was further discussion and clarification about the “lifestyle” graphic lighting, text, marketing slogans, location, etc. with the Committee Members and the applicants. Committee Member Imboden expressed his concerns about not having more information about this “lifestyle” signage that’s “billboard” size. There was more discussion with the Committee Members and the applicants about how often this graphic would be changing and what the content would be. The applicants replied it could be semi-annual and/or seasonal; this sign was still in the development stages. City of Orange – Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for November 6, 2013 Page 5 of 10 Chair Fox reiterated the concerns of the DRC regarding the size of this “lifestyle” sign of 30-feet x 12-feet and that it would be seen from the street. Mr. Armison stated it would be a sign in good taste and sophisticated. Committee Member Wheeler stated it looked like the sign would be practically obscured from the street by the elliptical array of panels in the front. The applicant stated that they also thought this type of graphic/sign tied in with the Outlets at Orange signage (previously The Block) and pulled the surrounding neighborhood into the project. Committee Member Wheeler commented that the signs at the Outlets at Orange were supposed to be public service-type of graphics but instead turned into advertisements. Chair Fox asked if the DRC should add a condition that the graphics be monitored so they wouldn’t turn into Sprint mobile-type ads. Mr. Armison replied there are prohibitions against revenue-receiving billboards. Ms. Pehoushek replied that it could be a condition stating that it must be “lifestyle” graphics related to neutral lifestyles specific to the project, and no advertising-type messages. Committee Member Imboden stated that would be okay as long as the condition included that the graphic wouldn’t have the name of the property on it. Mr. Armison replied that some of their other projects do include their logos. There was more discussion about the “lifestyle” graphic sign and the Committee Members agreed the condition could say that the lettering area would be limited to 10% of the sign area. Chair Fox stated that some of the call-out colors in the Sign Program needed to be corrected. The applicant referred to the updated 11 x 17 Sign Program booklet and stated the corrections had been made. Chair Fox commented that she was glad the applicant was using halo lighting. She also confirmed with the applicant that the leasing sign that’s mounted on the edge of the canopy and the directional sign are non-illuminated. The applicant stated the address numbers are back-lit due to Fire Department requirements. Chair Fox: I wanted to start with this one issue that is (inaudible)…some of the lighting that’s indicating on the, that’s actually overlapping with landscape. Some of the lighting on the lighting plans doesn’t jive with the lighting called out in the landscape plans. Especially on these fi ns that are in front. You have on the lighting plan a pendant light called out there and I think that’s an error. Applicant: Yes. It was a mistake. It was mislabeled, because all those blades are going to be internally illuminated. City of Orange – Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for November 6, 2013 Page 6 of 10 Chair Fox: I saw the detail for that in the landscape plans. So, how about we start comment on lighting. Committee Member McCormack, referencing porch lights on pages 6 and 11, confirmed with the applicant first, that the pendant lighting would be in the courtyard and cabana area - the outdoor landscaped areas; and secondly, that the porch lighting/fixtures would fit into the family of lighting fixture scheme for appearance and aesthetics. Committee Member McCormack asked the lighting and landscape representatives to explain the synergy of the lighting and landscaping areas. Mr. Schrock replied they wanted a “hip-urban” palette with great images from soft romantic lighting; indirect lighting would be on most of the plant materials and hanging from the trees. There was discussion with the Committee Members and the applicants about the color of the lighting, incandescent (more of a yellow light) vs. LED (more of a blue light). The applicants confirmed it would be more towards the yellow lighting than the blue lighting, and that they were comfortable with the way their project lighting looked in conjunction with the more blue- type street lighting along City Drive and Manchester. Mr. Armison confirmed the perimeter lighting presented in Phase 1 would continue around the rest of the building. Committee Member Wheeler stated his concern about the lighting for the vertical elements (fins) had already been discussed. The Committee Members and the applicants discussed the fin element further; Chair Fox stated the electrical plans needed to be corrected to match the landscape lighting plans for lighting of the fins. Mr. Carlson added that the fins would be four colors of different combinations and variety. Chair Fox had lighting concerns regarding: Lighting of the Palms (referenced on the plans). Chair Fox confirmed with the applicants that the DRC would add a condition that the up-lighting on the trees on the perimeter would be consistent with what was previously approved for the garage. Perimeter lighting fixtures. Chair Fox confirmed with the applicants that the DRC would add a condition that the perimeter lighting would match fixtures approved for Phase 1. Chair Fox also confirmed with the applicants that the bollards were called out in the inside of the courtyard area on the plans. Chair Fox next discussed the landscaping. Committee Member McCormack addressed his concerns: What we should do so I don’t over comment, which I don’t plan on anyways, is explain the reduction in the trees, the reason why the reduction of the trees. Applicant: The reductions sounded like a lot, one here, two there…as the architect plus the buildings, plus units to make the stacks work, make the assembly right. Basically every window and every deck has to have a ladder for the fire (inaudible) so it’s a flat path that the ladder can City of Orange – Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for November 6, 2013 Page 7 of 10 go to the different levels, different floors. So basically, harsh exhibit but…all the red are where the fire wants to get to, to be able to put a ladder down to get to the different windows. If you imagine putting a ladder higher the building goes, the farther the ladder has to go out, so that’s these kind of intermediate lines, so basically it’s like a 2X5’ flat pad area so after (inaudible) fill all the units , we were conflict, juggling where the trees can go and cannot go. But they unequivocally did not want any trees in front of there. It’s like we lost one tree here, two there, one there…so it’s not significant. Committee Member McCormack: So I guess my big question was, when you were presented with this obstacle, the results after that is having them equally spaced in some sort of pattern that doesn’t look like there is an opening because you had to put ladder. If I was asked to do this, I would have tried to space them out and surely I would lose one or gain one depending upon how…this is still equally spaced. Applicant: Where I was really concerned about it is here. That’s where you wanted the palms raised, by the way, remember, you wanted the palms raised so that the trees and the palms would be different. We’ve done that. The cycad to those palms and the cycad those trees along there…..these areas, there is like 3 trees, 3 palms, 3 palms…that cycads still sits. I would say the dramatic of the cycads is retained; the secondary trees had to be moved. I don’t think anyone is going to notice. Committee Member McCormack: Courtyard area, I’m not that concerned but I just have some questions. It looked like you took the Phoenix Dactyliferas out and put in a smaller rahis, is that just because of the size issue? I’m just curious more than anything else. Applicant: Both different shapes the entry from that radius. Committee Member McCormack: There is 33 Lyonothamnus eliminated from the pool courtyard? Applicant: (inaudible) possible. Committee Member McCormack: It says right there 33 Lyonothamnus included and approved plants have been eliminated from the pool courtyard. It’s seems like a lot of changes. Applicant: Totally different design. I think that’s…. Committee Member McCormack: I think we have completely changed that . Applicant: No that’s what you said and I think I made a comment to you guys… That was originally (inaudible) Committee Member McCormack: and with those being evergreen, I was concerned that, that this being a courtyard with these tall buildings, was going to get too dark. I think you guys really responded to what I was saying, in terms of in the past courtyards applicants using a combination of Arrhenatherum and ginkgo which is both assiduous, which opens it up in the winter time so City of Orange – Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for November 6, 2013 Page 8 of 10 it’s brighter. I think that’s a great idea, instead of the Ficus Rubiginosa. It’s what kind of what you’re after, right? Applicant: Yes, exactly. Actually, you’re the one who recommended that. Committee Member McCormack: Yeah, I did. I think that you came up with some pretty good trees. I think what the Erythrina, the coral tree is going to take a lot of pruning but if you’re going to have the look of being a refined community, of a refined living environment. Applicant: In general, I don’t like using coral trees unless they’re in these kinds of protected areas, you know, they break off, but in these kinds of protected areas they become kind of a unique canopy. Committee Member McCormack: Explain to me (inaudible); what was the selection behind that. Is that a variety that has some sort of attribute that you were after? Applicant: I think it’s just (inaudible) Committee Member McCormack: so make sure it’s not male. You do not want fruit. Applicant: Generally, in our specs we spray for pretty much anything. Committee Member McCormack: Fruit smells like a bunch of baby diapers up in the trees. Also, the GMGH what’s that? Too much GH? Chair Fox: Magnolias? Committee Member McCormack: Is that a small Magnolia or big Magnolia? Applicant: (inaudible) narrow…so against the building. Committee Member McCormack: alright. And then, otherwise I think you guys have done a great job. I’m really happy with it. I was looking through here, trying to figure out this, once again, great job on this in terms of dealing with the structural scope. I was combing these plans, from a contractor’s point of view, where do I limit this structural soil. In looking at the plan, you have structural soil underneath the tree and I’m assuming, you’re not doing structural soil literally along the curb but you’re doing it underneath the sidewalk. It doesn’t show in the plans where you stop the structural soil, which would then bring me the assumption that you are not going to stop the structural soil, it’s going to be underneath all the sideways. Is that the intention? I’ve got glasses on, but I don’t see. Maybe in was in specs that we didn’t get. I’m trying to figure out where on this detail, right here detail F. It shows structural soil underneath the sidewalk and if I was (inaudible) right in the hallway. Applicant: it is. Committee Member McCormack: But then I referenced these concrete joints maybe it could cross reference that underneath this concrete paving is structural soil. City of Orange – Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for November 6, 2013 Page 9 of 10 Applicant: it is in our specs, but the detail could be clearer, for sure. Committee Member McCormack: Maybe if you could put it underneath all the concrete paving is the structural soil, that way it’s consistent. I’ve done structural soil, when you trying to irrigate too much, it just doesn’t work, It gets sloppy, there no real way to put up (inaudible) stop. Applicant: At first I didn’t understand your question, but I know what you mean. Chair Fox made a motion to approve Phase 2 of the final signage, landscape, and lighting plans for MJSP No. 0704-12, ENV No. 1831-12, VAR No. 2222-12, and DRC No. 4652-12 - AMLI Residential-Uptown Orange, subject to the findings and conditions contained in the Staff Report and with the following additional conditions: The lettering area of the “lifestyle” graphic (depicted on the plans, but not included in the presented sign program) shall be limited to 10% of the sign area. There shall not be any exposed raceways on the internally-lit signage. The fin array at the entry shall be lighted per the landscape plans, and not per the electrical plan. The perimeter lighting fixtures along the streets shall match the fixtures that were approved for the parking structure (Phase 1 of the project). A “note” shall be added stating that the structural soil will be provided consistently under the concrete paving along the streetscape. The Gingko bibola trees shall be of the non-fruiting variety. The colors of the signs in the original submittal shall be superseded by the submittal dated November 5, 2013. SECOND: Joe Woollett AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange – Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for November 6, 2013 Page 10 of 10 ADJOURNMENT: Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to adjourn to the next regular scheduled Design Review Committee meeting on November 20, 2013. SECOND: Tim McCormack AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. Meeting adjourned at 6:27 p.m.