2012-03-21 DRC Final Minutes CITY OF ORANGE
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
MINUTES - FINAL
March 21, 2012
Committee Members Present: Carol Fox
Tim McCormack
Craig Wheeler
Joe Woollett
Committee Members Absent: None
Staff in Attendance: Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner
Doris Nguyen, Associate Planner
Dan Ryan, Historic Preservation Planner
Lucy Yeager, Contract Planner
Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary
Administrative Session — 5:00 P.M.
Chair Woollett opened the Administrative Session at 5:20 p.m. with a review of the Agenda.
Senior Planner, Chad Ortlieb, stated there were no changes to the Agenda. He stated that Staff
expected the City Council would be appointing a new member to the Design Review Committee
and that new member would be joining them at an upcoming meeting.
Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to adjourn the Administrative Session.
SECOND: Carol Fox
AYES: Carol Fox, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED.
Administrative Session adjourned at 5:23 p.m.
Regular Session - 5:30 P.M.
ROLL CALL:
All Committee Members were present, and there was one open position on the DRC.
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.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for March 21, 2012
Page 2 of 34
CONSENT ITEMS:
(1) Approval of Minutes: None
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for March 21, 2012
Page 3 of 34
AGENDA ITEMS:
Continued Items
(2) DRC No. 4576 -11 — SHAFFER RESIDENCE— RECONSTRUCT FACADE
• A proposal to reconstruct the front porch that was demolished on a 1919 Craftsman
Bungalow.
• 247 N. Cleveland Street, Old Towne Historic District
• Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, 714 - 744 -7224, dryan(&,cit oy forange.org
• Previous DRC Review: November 2, 2011
• DRC Action: Final Determination
Historic Preservation Planner, Dan Ryan, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff
Report.
Applicant, Mike Williams, address on file, stated the porch was not demolished, it fell down.
They saved all the banisters and the rail for the steps. The Elephantine pillars were saved and the
only thing that they had to change was in removing the roofing structure the 1" x 6 "s were
removed where there had been 3/8" plywood. Basically they had saved everything and just had
to put it back.
Public Comment
Jeff Frankel, address on file, representing the Old Town Preservation Association (OTPA). He
welcomed Committee Member Fox to the DRC. He had been confused by the Staff Report that
stated the project went beyond the scope of the project. He had received a call that the porch had
collapsed and it had almost fallen on someone. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards stated
that there needed to be assurance that everything was shored up properly so that situations such
as this would not happen. He questioned the CEQA exemption as it was a partial demolition and
the OTPA wanted to make sure it was constructed as it had originally been with appropriate
materials. Appropriate style brick, same balusters, railings and everything. It was unfortunate
that more of the material was not saved, because that should have been a requirement; and to use
the original materials. On the plans the foundation of the porch was brick, a brick veneer and he
had thought the original porch was concrete and brick would not be appropriate.
Chair Woollett opened the item to the Committee for discussion.
Committee Member Fox stated on the photographs the porch appeared to be a smooth material
and the drawing for reconstruction was brick. She asked what the intent was?
Mr. Williams stated the original house had a red brick foundation. As they pealed the stucco off
of the exterior it was brick that had been stuccod over. When they had completed the foundation
they allowed for a setback on the foundation wall in order to wafer the original red brick and
then to veneer the foundation with the homes original red brick. He tried to preserve what had
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for March 21, 2012
Page 4 of 34
been there. The comment about the front porch being cement was incorrect; it was a red brick
porch.
Committee Member Fox stated she had driven by and had seen red brick that had appeared to
have been there forever.
Chair Woollett asked if the porch itself was brick and what had it been set on?
Mr. Williams stated the foundation under the porch was brick. The supports for the Elephantine
piers were also red brick that had been stuccod over; they would be restoring those.
Committee Member Fox reviewed the drawings with the applicant to gain information on where
the red brick would be applied. She stated that she was pleased to hear that the original materials
would be re -used and on the detail for the balusters, had shown a detail of not on center but a
clear of 3" but she also thought the detail on the handrail was more accurate that showed the
broad face of the 1 ' / 2" x 2 I /2" turned 90 degrees. On the balusters on the porch it had appeared
in the photo to be turned but not on the drawing and she wanted to ensure it would be turned.
Mr. Williams stated yes, it would be turned with original materials being used. The only thing
that could not be salvaged was the 1" x 6" pieces that supported the roof.
Chair Woollett stated he could not imagine if the porch had fallen down that it would have fallen
into a pile.
Committee Member Wheeler asked if he had consulted with a structural engineer?
Mr. Williams stated he had not felt there was need for that.
Committee Member Wheeler stated it was his understanding that with a re- construction the
porch would need to meet current code. Once an engineer reviewed the project he would want to
see the connections that had not been shown. The connections would need to be visibly
appropriate. The home across the street used rods set in holes with epoxy, and the City had
accepted that. The other things that worried him was the connection for the cross beam and how
that would be connected below and to the house; he was certain an engineer would want to
understand that.
Mr. Williams stated he could get an engineer involved if that was the request of the DRC. It was
going to be a ledger -style porch, where the ledger would be fastened to a 2 "x 6" with that being
fastened to the home with a 4 ' / 2 " lag. That, to his knowledge, would meet code as far as the
ledger would be concerned. For the end post caps that would carry the 4" x 6" header they could
certainly get into some old school pre- existing conditions and he was not opposed to hiding
things.
Committee Member Wheeler stated the rafter to beam connection would be a bit tricky. He
suggested that those details might need to come back to the DRC before the project was
approved.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for March 21, 2012
Page 5 of 34
Mr. Williams asked why that would be necessary?
Committee Member Wheeler stated he would want to review what was happening.
Mr. Williams stated with as much experience as Committee Member Wheeler had he was certain
that some conditions could be placed on the project that would sufficiently create the Old Towne
feel with the project. He would be willing to do whatever was requested and he understood that
Committee Member Wheeler was very experienced with such projects.
Chair Woollett asked if the project would need Building Department approval?
Mr. Ryan stated yes, that was correct.
Chair Woollett stated it was not exactly rocket science and the proposed project might not
require an engineer if the details were reasonably good and if there were any exposed hardware
they would want to see it back before them.
Mr. Williams stated he felt there was not a reason to hold the homeowners back from completing
their project when he had the experience to bring the home back to its original form. He had no
doubt that he could accomplish that with the DRC's approval.
Committee Member McCormack stated when the applicant stated original condition and that
condition had been brick; when it fell down the bricks ended up in a pile and he asked if the
brick was saved? Were the bricks actual bricks or a brick veneer? He was concerned that there
were so many types of brick and that "used" or the original brick should be used.
Committee Member Wheeler stated that it appeared to him that the original brick was a brick
veneer.
Mr. Williams stated when the foundation was demolished they saved the brick and they would
re -use that brick. They wafered them. The foundation was concrete with brick veneer.
Committee Member Wheeler stated the brick on the porch appeared to be a more current brick
application and he asked if the porch had been re -done previously?
Mr. Williams stated he was not aware of that. They had a pre- approved permit for the whole
foundation of the house. The front settlement of the north corner of the porch was so severe that
the concrete surface of the porch had a 2" drop and the lip between the cut marks presented a
tripping hazard with a crack along the brick foundation.
Committee Member Fox asked how the corners would be detailed on the pilasters?
Mr. Williams stated they would use full bricks and not concrete. They would use the original
brick.
Committee Member McCormack reviewed the drawings with the applicant to gain information
on the details for the porch with an explanation of the concrete and brick applications.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for March 21, 2012
Page 6 of 34
Committee Member Wheeler stated the brick face would rest on the concrete.
Mr. Williams stated that was correct.
Committee Member McCormack stated he wanted to see the detail elements.
Chair Woollett stated the foundation replacement included the foundation under the porch and as
part of that foundation replacement it seemed that it would have been difficult to leave the
existing porch slab.
Mr. Williams stated it was the same as lifting a house.
Chair Woollett stated at this point a new porch slab would be poured.
Mr. Williams stated yes, the original porch was cracked and old.
Committee Member McCormack asked if the porch slab would be tied back into the house?
Mr. Williams stated there would be compacted dirt with a solid concrete foundation and the
upper slab would not be tied into the foundation; and it would be a better solution to keep it free.
Committee Member Wheeler stated he agreed it would be better to keep it free and that would be
a question for the engineer.
Mr. Ryan stated it was common to have brick piers and to stucco over the brick. He had seen
both original brick and stucco applications; typically in the 1930's the application would have
been stucco. In the environmental section of CEQA it had included reconstruction and included
rehabilitation and restoring.
The Committee Members discussed a motion.
Verbatim text:
Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve DRC No. 4576 -11, Shaffer Residence
facade reconstruction, in accordance with the findings of the Staff Report and the conditions of
the Staff Report and the additional 2 conditions as follows; that all exposed structural
connections on the porch that could be visible from the street or from the porch be designed in
such a way that no exposed hardware could be seen and if that was not possible that the project
return to this Committee for review of these proposed details; and secondly that the thickness of
the cap on the top of the brick pedestals be the same thickness as the porch slab.
SECOND: Carol Fox
AYES: Carol Fox, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for March 21, 2012
Page 7 of 34
New Agenda Items:
(3) DRC No. 4577 -11- FOUNTAIN CARE FAQADE REMODEL
• A proposal to remodel the facade of an existing 157,082 sq. ft. building. The proposed
facade remodel is a redesign of DRC No. 4359 -08 which was approved on March 18,
2009. One elevation under DRC No. 4359 -08 was completed.
• 1835 W. La Veta Avenue and 1800 & 1832 W. Culver Avenue
• Staff Contact: Chad Ortlieb, 714- 744 -7237, cortliebna,cityoforange.org
• DRC Action: Preliminary Comments
Senior Planner, Chad Ortlieb, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report.
Applicant, Irais Torres, address on file, stated they wanted to continue the project in a single
phase, however, not in a single years time due to the OSHPOD process that would take them a
bit longer to go through and also for budgetary reasons. They agreed on the sign lighting that
there would be no inner lighting; it would be exterior lighting shooting at the letters for the main
signage and also for the directional signage. They wanted to discuss that in the area not seen
from the street. They would not be doing any framing or furring out of any elements; potentially
just painting the area to match the rest of the building.
Chair Woollett asked if that was the area where work had been done previously on the building?
Ms. Torres stated no, it was at the back of the building and she pointed to that area on the
drawings.
Mr. Ortlieb stated he believed there was a short wrap- around treatment and there would be no
other treatment to the west side of the property, between the two buildings.
Public Comment
None.
Chair Woollett opened the item to the Committee for discussion.
Committee Member Wheeler stated he appreciated the small size drawings as they were much
easier to handle.
Committee Member Fox asked on the color scheme that was on the area that had already been
completed would that color scheme be used for the rest of the project?
Ms. Torres stated yes.
Committee Member Wheeler stated he would want to see a roof plan and it would help to see if
there had been anything missed on the elevations. On the east elevation he was not sure what
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for March 21, 2012
Page 8 of 34
was happening with a projecting element and he could not find the size of that feature. On the
east elevation there was a tower element that had not showed up on the north elevation of the
building. A roof plan would clear up those questions. He would appreciate a new set of plans
with roof plans to clarify where everything was. On the south elevation there were pilasters that
appeared to be supporting a beam.
Ms. Torres stated they would not be carrying any load; they were there for the fagade portion.
They had checked with their structural engineer. When they went into the remodel the wall
would be extended to create the parapet and there would not be the need for the columns or
beam, she pointed out the area on the plans that she was referring to. The roof line would be
pulled back.
Committee Member Wheeler suggested that the headers in the walls be checked to ensure they
supported the load.
Committee Member McCormack asked if there were any landscape plans or were plans coming
back to them for landscaping?
Mr. Ortlieb stated it was at the pleasure of the DRC if they wanted to see landscape plans; if they
felt the proposal was fine in its present state it could be left that way. There were no formal
landscape plans, the drawings were conceptual. He presented a photo of the area between the
buildings that contained very compacted soil; it may be a zero lot line. Being a care facility
adjacent to another building he was not certain there needed to be a visual landscape barrier.
Committee Member McCormack stated it was a west facing wall and he would approach it with
adding some shading elements to that area and possibly adding trees in front of the windows.
Was the landscape concept just gravel with a vine on the wall or was it trees in front of windows,
which was another concept. They needed a clear vision.
Applicant, Greg Maedo, address on file, stated it was a two -story building that was right up
against their building, it was a dark area. It was facing west and it was dark. It was just a dark,
damp area.
Committee Member Fox stated if they were not proposing trees they should not be on the
drawings.
Committee Member McCormack stated a gravel and vine treatment would be a very minimalistic
treatment for that space.
Chair Woollett stated he had seen the project several times and it was a challenging project; the
direction that the proposal was taking was very good and he was pleased as he had gone through
it. There were a lot of details on the building and it was challenging and as proposed was the
right direction to go in. They had good direction and it had come together much better and to
have it in one continuous process was satisfying to the DRC to know that the project would not
stop half way through. He agreed that they needed a roof plan. The building was difficult to
deal with now; and he would favor a bit more information, a roof plan and the west area.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for March 21, 2012
Page 9 of 34
Committee Member Wheeler stated that west area was very narrow and a dark space you would
not want to go into.
Ms. Torres pointed out the west area on the plans.
Committee Member McCormack stated side yard treatments would not need a lot of details, just
a sustainable approach landscape -wise. To provide not too much moisture and a living element.
Committee Member Fox stated if the landscape that appeared on the site plan was existing to
remain, that it should be noted as such and if it was new to note that as well. If there was new
landscape proposed they would need a landscape plan. When she had reviewed the plan she
assumed the trees were all existing. Numbering of the sheets would assist her and cross -
referencing the pages would have helped her. The architecture was quite pleasant and the
environment was restful. It would be a great improvement to have the project move forward.
Committee Member McCormack asked if the square footage of the project put the application
into a water - efficient landscape requirement?
Mr. Ortlieb stated he had not calculated that.
The Committee Members reviewed the fountain element and the entry area with the applicant.
Committee Member Fox stated there was some detailing that was missing and it made it hard to
judge the proposal.
Chair Woollett stated if they were wanting the applicant to return they had not needed a motion
but to ensure that the applicant had clear direction of what they were requiring.
Mr. Ortlieb stated it was clear to Staff that a roof plan, sheet labeling, numbering and cross -
references were being asked for, a recommendation that if there were plantings for the west
elevation that they use a low maintenance landscape treatment. There would be details needed
pertaining to the sign, materials and removal of the overhead vines above the fountain area.
Committee Member Wheeler asked Staff if they were in agreement with the proposed lighting
for the signage?
Mr. Ortlieb stated the site was in a residential area and he would defer the preference of lighting
to the DRC members; Staff's recommendation would be that no lighting would be preferred due
to the building's location.
Chair Woollett stated if the light was directed to the sign it would need to be coming from above
and not from ground level.
Committee Member McCormack stated with letters as proposed he would suggest a backing be
added behind the standing letters that could be used as back lighting.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for March 21, 2012
Page 10 of 34
Committee Member Fox stated there were no colors called out for the window insets. For their
purposes to approve it they needed more information, how the lighting worked, the elevation
details and some more information on the entry piece.
Verbatim text.
Committee Member Fox moved to continue DRC No. 4577 -11, Fountain Care Facade Remodel,
to incorporate more detail as described. We don't need to do that in a motion, to continue.
SECOND: Craig Wheeler
AYES: Carol Fox, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Maedo asked if they were going to change the request for a year completion as the State took
forever, and they would not look at it for six months.
Chair Woollett stated two years.
Mr. Maedo stated the small portion took forever.
Chair Woollett asked what the year referred to?
Mr. Ortlieb stated that had been picked up from an applicant's statement at one point, the reality
was that once the application was approved they would have two years to pull permits and make
substantial improvements. To make a substantial effort to show that they put forth an effort
towards completion. Once it was approved the applicant had two years to pull the permit and
then there were some timelines that would tick forward, with substantial improvements begun it
would vest the project.
Chair Woollett suggested the applicant take a look at that and develop a realistic schedule.
L
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for March 21, 2012
Page 11 of 34
(4) DRC No. 4586 -11 — LARSON RESIDENCE (ROSSITER RANCH LOT 5)
• A proposal to construct a new 7,343 sq. ft. single - family residence on a vacant lot.
• 1450 Nicky Way
• Staff Contact: Doris Nguyen, 714- 744 -7223, dnguyen(a,cityoforange.org
• DRC Action: Final Determination
Associate Planner, Doris Nguyen, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report.
Applicant, Brian Brennan, address on file, was available for questions.
Public Comment
None.
Committee Member Wheeler presented a list of his questions /concerns to the applicant and
Committee Members. He asked Staff if the circular driveway met the City's requirements?
Ms. Nguyen stated no, it needed to be a minimum of 12'.
Committee Member Wheeler stated on the masonry walls, they had another project in the same
area, and they had asked the applicant to use a tubular steel fence.
Mr. Brennan stated the home owners were later in their years and there had been a recent
incident on one of the properties, due to the horse trail and accessibility; they had concerns about
that. The horse trail ran between lots 4 and 5, turned on lot 4 and went down lot 3. Line of sight
on the horse trail, with a hill that went up (he pointed out the areas he spoke of on the plans), it
was all in the back and a retaining wall was being proposed. The hillside was graded, and if they
could have a variance on the height to accommodate the heights of the slope. To request an open
lot on the opposing lot made sense, but the openness for the proposed property was a very
minimal distance and Staff had requested that there be no gap between the horse trail and
whatever they put in there, to minimize the distance as far as maintenance was concerned. With
that being said, whether if was wrought iron with Boston ivy, if there was someone coming down
the trail they would not be looking into the property. There were other lots that were in line of
sight with tubular steel fencing and made sense for that type of treatment. They were proposing
a CMU wall to keep the property more secure. It would also help with the distance of the slope
as it would be part of the retaining wall.
Ms. Nguyen stated Staff's recommendation along the trail itself that the wall be wrought iron or
tubular steel, along the actual trail and in the front for the property to be a little more open. Staff
felt that on lot 4 there were some more open gates and the property was not as closed off and it
was the feel of the OPA Plan.
Mr. Brennan stated there was a big stretch of openness. He pointed out the street on the
drawings and pointed out the open areas along the street. There would be one more lot before it
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for March 21, 2012
Page 12 of 34
would run into the ravene. The block wall was along the 20' setback. From the initial
presentation of the property all the way back that was open.
Chair Woollett pointed out where the walls were on the property.
Committee Member Wheeler stated he wanted to see more information on the rear yard
structures; there were no elevations for the pavilion on the back or for the trellis.
The Committee Members reviewed the plans with the applicant and Staff.
Mr. Brennan stated the structure in the back was open on three sides with a solid wall and a
barbeque center; there would be a restroom too.
Committee Member Wheeler stated he would want to see the details for those areas. The roof
plan and exterior elevation plan had not seemed to jive. He would also appreciate reduced
drawings. It appeared from the elevations there was a lower plate, but the way the hip line was
presented on the roof plan it appeared as if the two were at the same elevation.
Committee Member Fox stated someone needed to check the slopes and lines on the roof that
would not work.
Committee Member Wheeler stated the elevations showed some gable ends and it would be more
appropriate to have them all hip; when it came around it was a hip and the whole roof plan
needed to be studied. On the last house they had done in the same community, all the other
houses were consistent in the treatment all the way around the house. The proposal had the
mentality of a tract home, the area was an estate area and to present a front with all the stone,
shutters and heavy trim to the neighbors, but not care about family and guests in the backyard.
He felt strongly that the materials should be carried all the way around. To have some
consistency.
Mr. Brennan stated he wanted to get a feel of what it was they were thinking about.
Committee Member Wheeler stated to carry some of the features around, there were heavy sills
in the front, but not all the way around, there was stone and he suggested to make everything a
whole. On the stone, the river rock was not the best choice for the proposal and he suggested a
ledger stone or river rock, something more horizontal.
Mr. Brennan stated the property owners actually modeled the proposal after another home in
Orange, off of Mayberry, similar development, custom homes and the river rock was what
appealed to them. It was prevalent in that other property that they had modeled off of.
Committee Member Wheeler stated it was just a suggestion. On the stone veneer he would
recommend that it went all the way to the ground and not have the appearance of levitating stone.
He asked if the shutters were wood?
Mr. Brennan stated they were a pre -cast foam, with a coating over it and it had the appearance of
wood. It prevented against weathering, splitting and paint peeling.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for March 21, 2012
Page 13 of 34
Committee Member Wheeler asked if they had a wood grain texture?
Mr. Brennan stated they were smooth.
Committee Member Wheeler asked on the cap that went across the stone veneer, was that a stone
cap?
Mr. Brennan stated it was proposed as a foam cap.
Committee Member Wheeler stated the front windows had some sort of enhanced trim, but it
was not called out as to the materials and had not carried around to the side windows.
Ms. Nguyen asked if he was wanting materials and dimensions?
Committee Member Wheeler stated just materials. The eave soffit needed to be called out if they
were going to be stucco. He asked how the attic would be vented?
Mr. Brennan stated he would use O'Hagin vents, they were Spanish -esque style and a very low
profile vent that blended into the house and basically went away.
Committee Member Wheeler stated on the floor plans, he was curious if there were skylights?
Mr. Brennan asked what he was looking at were ceiling treatments; there were other areas that
had skylights. He pointed those out on the plans.
Committee Member Wheeler stated the storage shed looked lost, everything else had high sloped
roofs and he asked if the applicant had considered using a higher sloped roof? He suggested
some connection to the other buildings, possibly a trellis.
Mr. Brennan stated he was not certain of the height restrictions.
Committee Member Fox stated there was a building code that was more restrictive.
Mr. Brennan stated he had lowered the pitch and utilized it for what it was.
Committee Member Fox stated in the building code the height limit was not necessarily at the
peak. She had a concern with the patio structure; it was a large footprint and would even have a
lower impact. She had some issues about the roof line. The house laid out in a very interesting
way, but the roof lines were completely chaotic and huge, very large compared to the one -story
nature of the home. There was an enormous proportion of roof to house. If there were
restrictions in other structures and they all needed to appear if they belonged, and she was not
certain how the other Committee Members felt. It was chaotic and overbearing to her. The
complications in the roof plan had not manifested yet; there were more complications and there
may be more issues.
Chair Woollett asked why the roof pitch was so steep?
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for March 21, 2012
Page 14 of 34
Mr. Brennan stated the basic nature of the home was based on another home that was located in
Orange. They used the footprint of that home and made some changes to it. The pitch, style,
roof, and floor plan, were very close.
Committee Member Fox stated it was how the roofs were hitting the core. The chimney had no
spark arrester on it.
Mr. Brennan stated with recent codes; fireplaces, newer ones were ventless and with the use of
gas appliances. It was considered an appliance.
Committee Member Wheeler suggested he could make it more interesting. Out of curiosity, and
it struck him as odd that there were two sinks at the kitchen island, but the dishwasher was not
located close by. He thought the dishwasher should be next to the sink.
Committee Member McCormack asked if there were overhangs on the roof?
Mr. Brennan stated where the two points met there was space and one area would be cut back
more. The roof pitches were different due to height restrictions. He pointed out the areas he was
speaking about on the plans and explained the roof pitch and heights.
Committee Member Fox stated she was not suggesting that the pitch be lowered to a 4 and 12,
but the mass made it fairly overbearing in some areas.
Committee Member Wheeler suggested getting rid of the barge board or gable ends. Maybe he
would want to bring it down a bit. It just had not seemed to work the way it was drawn.
Committee Member McCormack stated the landscape was California Native; the person who had
fallen in love with that type of architecture usually fell in love with the landscape in its natural
form. The proposal before him had not matched. He was not sure if the owner asked for the
plants as proposed.
Mr. Brennan stated the applicant had asked for some of the plants that were being proposed. The
property owners were a big farming family, and they had citrus trees up at the top. There had
been a lot of thought.
Committee Member McCormack stated another thing he had grappled with was the perimeter
edge. The plan showed a complete walled area around the perimeter and he asked if that was the
intent? The same symbol was shown as a block wall all the way around.
Mr. Brennan stated yes, the wall varied based on the grade. He pointed out the different areas on
the plans. He was attempting to recapture usable land. With the slope it went from 2 '/2 to 1, to 2
to 1 and that was why the wall heights differed.
Committee Member McCormack asked if it was all native area? He asked if there were any fuel
modification requirements?
Mr. Brennan stated it was all native.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for March 21, 2012
Page 15 of 34
Ms. Nguyen stated there was not a fuel modification requirement.
Committee Member McCormack stated when he saw the wall as indicated, on an area he pointed
to on the plans, there was a 10' fall to the bottom.
Mr. Brennan stated chain link was what they were proposing.
Committee Member McCormack stated chain link would not work in that neighborhood.
Committee Member Wheeler stated chain link was very inappropriate.
Ms. Nguyen stated it would also be too tall, there was a maximum fence height of 6'; however
when it was retaining on the short side, which was the taller sloped side it could be 6' and the
exposed side could be 10'. If the exposed side was higher than 10' it would require a variance.
Mr. Brennan stated they had toyed around with adding an additional terraced wall.
Committee Member McCormack stated if picking oranges, the fall could be 10' as there was not
a guard rail there. Although the retaining wall was up against a mountain, but the openness issue
of the area was not an issue at that point, but safety was. They spoke of the openness of the area
and the problem of having a block wall just appear, in a fortress -like look; since there would be
some tubular steel as a guard rail with stepping down there was the other issue of a needed fence
to protect the pool.
Mr. Brennan stated they would not be able to up and then come down, there was private property
above that and they would not be able to climb a slope with a fence there.
Committee Member McCormack stated it seemed when they got down to grade the 5' tubular
steel fence should continue.
Mr. Brennan stated they would be at a zero point and he was just building block walls. The issue
was security.
Committee Member McCormack stated the retaining wall was at zero point then it was going
with tubular fence for safety and pool requirements, then at zero point the transparent fence went
away and then a big huge opaque wall would appear out of nowhere. The transition between the
screen or safety fence changed too abruptly. He would suggest carrying the same material all the
way around. His point was that the openness was preferred with the landscape taking on the
security and privacy issue. From the trail there would be a block wall against decomposed
granite and it was not the "presentation" that would be wanted for a trail system.
Committee Member Wheeler stated he agreed with that completely.
Mr. Brennan stated if he used tubular steel with Boston ivy on it, fully grown in, they would not
see the tubular steel anymore. If it was a block system with Boston ivy there would be privacy.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for March 21, 2012
Page 16 of 34
The block wall would serve a purpose and had continuity. From a trail standpoint they were only
looking at a 20' span. He explained the area of the trail system.
Committee Member Wheeler stated the OPA Guidelines were very clear that they had not
wanted solid block walls along the trail system, and they should adhere to those Guidelines.
Mr. Brennan asked if he spoke with OPA and they gave him an acceptance to his proposal would
that be okay with Staff?
Committee Member Fox stated she had a problem with the abundance of block wall, creating a
compound, fortress effect that went against the openness of what the OPA area was all about. If
there was a specific small area that required opaque fencing they could consider that, but the
applicant was asking for the opaque fencing throughout the entire area. Clearly it was necessary
for retaining purposes, but not for the whole project.
Mr. Brennan stated he was not asking for anything more than what had been done on lot No. 1,
which was block wall on all four sides.
Senior Planner, Chad Ortlieb, stated in the OPA policies, that were part of the City's General
Plan, it stated the plan was to promote the use of wood rail fencing, either natural or painted
white to give the feel of openness while restricting the use of block walls, chain link or other
opaque fencing. It went on to speak of the creation of a positive view from the roads,
emphasizing landscape or open features through open wood fences. Those were the policies, and
with any project that the City reviewed, they had their General Plan and policies set out and they
strived to meet them as much as they could. There were some instances where a project was so
large that all components could not be met, but the goal would be to meet the intent. To meet the
intent of the project before them they could have small segments of opaque fencing, however,
the overall intent was to meet the policies.
Committee Member McCormack stated he would want a little more study of the tubular fence
that was on the retaining wall that went into a 6' high block wall, the transition needed to be
looked at. The edge treatments of OPA tended to be very foliage oriented and was used for a
privacy screen, which was not happening in the proposal before them. It was bringing the
hillside landscape into the yard. There were not the hedges and leafy greens coming out in the
landscape.
Mr. Brennan stated they needed to meet the requirements of the pool and everything else they
had there. The natural elements were those that were desired by the homeowner. They wanted
to pick that up in their landscape. Privacy and security were a concern with them.
Committee Member Wheeler stated it would be helpful to have the elevation drawing for the
fences to see where they were needed with the pool and so forth; something they could review.
Committee Member McCormack stated he assumed that the owner was getting all 1 gallon that
would be very small; the 15 gallon would be almost as tall as he was and his biggest concern was
with the Joshua Tree. The Joshua Tree would not grow in that environment. At 15 gallons it
would be very small, typically if used in a residential area and if you were poked with it, the
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for March 21, 2012
Page 17 of 34
injury site would get infected within 8 hours. He had placed some at the Hesperia City Hall and
he had to ensure all the foliage was above head high, and those came in a 60" box. It was the
slowest growing species on earth.
Chair Woollett stated he felt they had provided enough guidance and asked the applicant if he
had enough information?
Mr. Brennan stated it was pretty straight forward.
Verbatim text.
Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to continue DRC No. 4586 -11, Larson Residence,
subject to the guidance given during the discussion.
SECOND: Tim McCormack
AYES: Carol Fox, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for March 21, 2012
Page 18 of 34
(5) DRC No. 4592 -11 — CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY CENTER FOR THE ARTS
• A proposal to construct an 88,142 sq. ft., 1,050 seat performance theater for use by
Chapman University, the public, and professional touring groups. The proposal also
includes the construction of a campus green and tempietto.
• 415 — 489 N. Glassell Street
• Staff Contact: Lucy Yeager, 714 - 744 -7239, lyeager(acit oy forange.org
• DRC Action: Recommendation with Conditions of Approval to the Community
Development Director
Contract Planner, Lucy Yeager, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report.
Applicant, Ken Ryan, KTGY Group, address on file, stated Ms. Yeager had done a great job of
summarizing their proposal. He introduced his team. They had gone through the Planning
Commission and City Council in terms of the land use issues and the aspects related to those
components had all been dealt with. His team of representatives had also had several meetings
with OTPA, OBHS, and various community groups and they were all very supportive of the
proposal. They had made adjustments based on those meetings. They had gone through all the
recommendations and the Staff Report and there was one minor adjustment that they would be
asking the Zoning Administrator and Community Development Director to adjust; that was
Condition No. 6. There was a limit of 30,000 cubic yards of dirt to be moved and they intended
to move 38,500 cubic yards and they were asking for an adjustment to that number.
Applicant, Kris Olsen, Chapman University, address on file, stated what was driving that amount
of dirt to be moved was the goal of keeping the building as low as possible. The only way to do
that was to go down almost 50'.
Mr. Ryan stated the project would be a sixty -four million facility on three acres and it would be a
performance and education facility for use by the students. The Center for the Arts, upon
completion, would host concerts and recitals, operas, musical plays, and Chapman University's
annual celebration; as well as hosting City and community events. It was a Proscenium theatre
with two balconies, 1,050 seats and square footage of 8,800. In addition to the detailed aspects
of a performing arts center there were details to highlight. One to mention was that the building
was 55' in height with 49' below grade and as it related to the core campus it was very
compatible. From a land use perspective it fit in with the campus floor area and it added a great
opportunity for creating space, which was the campus green which was sunken down off of
Glassell.
Mr. Olsen stated the zoning requirement was for 20% open green space and they had exceeded
that, as it was close to 50 %.
Mr. Ryan stated the other important feature was the edge treatment along Glassell. There was a
significant setback and there was an open space element that went all the way to the Chapel. He
pointed out and explained the area to the Committee Members. He presented project drawing
boards of the different areas and components of the proposal. He stated that there would be valet
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for March 21, 2012
Page 19 of 34
parking off of University Drive and the ability for guests to arrive at the Global Citizen's Plaza
and enter the facility. They had a landscape plan for the site that was respectful of the
neighborhood and the campus. There was a red liquor store at the corner of the site and they had
designed around it and if and when that use went away at some future date the building was
designed to compensate for that space that could be a future storage area and make it work in the
future. All the materials would be consistent with the Chapman blend of brick, plaster and
painted materials. There was a layered level of trees with Palms and Camphor trees which was a
nice blend with the architecture. He reviewed the remainder of the presentation boards with the
Committee Members.
Public Comment
Jeff Frankel, address on file, representing the OTPA, stated they had numerous meetings with the
Chapman representatives and he felt Chapman University had hired some great people and some
great preservation minded people. At every meeting they asked that they go deeper and deeper
and when they had come back to meet they had done that. The outreach to the community had
been great and it was a great project.
Chair Woollett opened the item to the Committee for discussion.
Committee Member Fox stated there was another performing arts facility on campus and she
asked if that would be re- purposed for another use or remain as a performing arts venue?
Mr. Olsen stated the historic Memorial Hall auditorium was currently their main venue and it
would continue to be used, and was used almost every night for student performances, visiting
professors and poets. The community used it as well. They felt it would still continue to have a
significant amount of use. The Center for The Arts would be a teaching facility.
Committee Member Fox asked if there would be simultaneous events as her concern was the
parking circulation impact and if there were two events happening at the same time?
Mr. Ryan stated they had gone into great detail with the Planning Commission and City Council
during the use discussion. The requirement for parking per City code was 427 spaces and they
added 15% to that. The events that would be scheduled at the new facility would be during non -
peak hours. If there were other things going on they would have adequate parking between the
two parking structures. There was a parking management plan and it was also included as a
condition of approval that would have the correct uniformity, staff and directions for instances
when overlapping events might occur.
Committee Member Fox asked what was the height of Beckman Hall?
Mr. Ryan stated 62'. They would be at 55' with the proposed project and the aquatic center at
45'. It was what was allowed within the Specific Plan.
Committee Member Fox asked what was the height above Glassell for that portion of the
project? She asked what the height of the market was?
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for March 21, 2012
Page 20 of 34
Mr. Ryan stated it was about 45'. For the market with the layered landscaping and the layout of
the structure that the line of sight would be to look past that.
Committee Member Fox stated it would have an impact on the outdoor space and she was
curious as to if it was at the same height of their low element.
Mr. Ryan stated it was somewhere along those lines.
Committee Member Fox stated on the height of the walls being beyond what the Specific Plan
would allow due to sinkage, were all the tall walls facing inward?
Mr. Ryan stated that was correct. Next to the Chapel they had broken that up, where the wall
had a landscape planter area on the top of that, with the trees between.
Mr. Olsen stated also with the Fire Department requirements, it was a challenging component.
Committee Member Wheeler stated he understood that the structures that were being removed
were non - contributing. The Papa Hassan's was at least culturally contributing and he suggested
that the applicant provide some sort of photo documentation that could be provided to the library.
On the arrangement of the columns at the entry, it was to him a non - complimentary visual
element. He asked for an explanation.
Applicant, Bill Murray, address on file, stated the building symmetry of the big portal element
was strengthened by using the terracotta columns asymmetrically. If those were symmetrical the
focal point of that area would be so overly strong. They had a very strong axial relationship to
the building, to the landscape, and to the University. They were providing little moves here and
there to create symmetry. They felt strongly that having those columns rotated slightly was a
good thing.
Committee Member Wheeler stated he hoped they would think very carefully about them. On
the tempietto, obviously they were using Doric columns but not a Doric entablature.
Mr. Olsen stated the origin of that, and even in the very early stages, President Doti had to have a
tempietto and they had been given a photo of another university that had one. They had been
working with that to ensure a good fit; he was open to suggestions for adjustments.
Committee Member Wheeler stated if there was a more complicated entablature it would be
difficult to put the signage on it. He suggested ionic capitals and it would be more appropriate
with the entablature proposed. He asked if it was on any sort of a raised podium or had the
columns gone down to grade?
Applicant, Warren Williams, address on file, stated the campus green sloped from University
Drive to the north, 4 to 4 '/z %, which was a good gentle slope and allowed for Fire Department
access. There would be a landing concept with drainage off of the four sides.
Applicant, Claudia Kath, address on file, stated the tempietto had a flat floor in it. On the north
side there would be a step and there were planters around that to take up any trip hazard.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for March 21, 2012
Page 21 of 34
Committee Member Wheeler stated it was a good solution and he admired the set of drawings
that had been provided.
Chair Woollett stated it was a great project and it was right in line with everything they had
done. He liked the way the proposal dealt with historical references in a totally contemporary
way and it was appropriate. They struggled on the DRC with ordinances in Old Towne and how
could they respect history and in recreating some aspects they could do more harm then good,
and that was what pleased him about the way the aesthetics had been handled on the University
Campus. On the issue of circulation and if he was visiting that site he would want to park in the
parking garage instead of going up to the surface and over and back down again, he would want
to scoot right over at parking level right to the front door and he asked if they allowed for that?
Mr. Ryan stated the parking structure had a grand exit, and that would take a person down the
plaza.
Chair Woollett stated that would be fine if he was on time. He was surprised that a linkage had
not been provided; he asked if that had been considered?
Mr. Ryan stated he was not certain if that was contemplated. The honest answer was there had
been a strong request from their neighbors to reduce the height of the building and going so deep
had presented some major costs. The campus was such a lovely place to walk around, and going
to the theatre would be the experience and part of that was the arrival to the campus.
Chair Woollett stated he agreed that the arrival was like the aroma of the steak that went with the
wine. On the landscape and on the Camphor trees in particular; the scale of the landscaping was
very appropriate and how large those trees would get was very significant. When those trees
matured it would be, not hidden behind, but enough behind that foliage that it would be set off
fairly well behind the trees. The height of the Palm trees was also great.
Committee Member McCormack stated he was totally excited and it was an incredible project;
and he was quite honored to be able to provide comments about it. He had a son who attended
Chapman and he was on the water polo team. He used the parking structure. For two years he
could not figure it out and he always ended up going the wrong way; and he ended up on Walnut.
The first time he went there he ended up going up the ramp. He then found the stairwell. He
was pretty savvy about circulation and such and someone who was not familiar would do the
same thing. He was not certain what the solution was, but he had an issue with the connection to
the pool and he had a problem with that.
Mr. Olsen stated the pool was immediately adjacent to the parking structure, but it was not
immediately accessible at the same time.
Committee Member McCormack stated that was correct and he had gone to the elevators and he
was looking for a connection. He was not certain what could be done to improve that and he
provided that information from his experience there. He asked for an explanation of the
Magnolia trees being relocated on site as he had not understood where the trees were coming
from and what was the intent?
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for March 21, 2012
Page 22 of 34
Ms. Kath stated there were existing Magnolia trees on University Drive that would be displaced
and those would be replaced.
Committee Member McCormack stated on the plant palette it was a good mix and very exciting;
the landscape aesthetic had not matched and he felt that was the intent and he was okay with that.
It was an interesting palette. On the Crape Myrtle color he suggested using the Indian tribe
varieties; they would not mildew.
Ms. Kath stated they would be using the trees that were around the Global Citizen's plaza and
those were red, they would keep within that red theme.
Committee Member McCormack stated on the Glassell setback; his biggest thing was on the
railings and was there a Chapman University railing that ran throughout the campus?
Ms. Kath stated where there was a parapet condition and it could not be screened by landscape
they would use a Chapman -type railing. On the Glassell edge or the stepped planters they would
use a cable guard rail that would be buried in the hedge for safety purposes.
Committee Member McCormack asked for an explanation of the removable bollards?
Mr. Olsen stated that was for Fire Department access and that whole area was a fire lane.
Committee Member McCormack asked if the Pittosporum would be used as a clipped hedge?
Ms. Kath stated yes.
Committee Member McCormack stated there was a call out for no -mow fescue and Golden
Breath of Heaven at 18" on center. He was attempting to understand the aesthetic for that area.
Ms. Kath stated those were sloped areas and to have the appearance of mown vs. non -mown
areas and some interest to the area.
Committee Member McCormack stated in his experience the Golden Breath of Heaven would
grow to 3' and he questioned that plant choice and he understood that the intent was to get it up
to about knee height to create a blockage for people that might want to walk through that area.
The issue was if that plant was left to grow to its natural form, would it be too high? And
trimming it would give the appearance of a hedge. He suggested they rethink that plant choice.
He asked what the lighting concept was?
Mr. Ryan stated that would be brought back to the DRC with their signage.
Ms. Kath stated they wanted to have subtle lighting and in keeping with the rest of the campus.
Chapman University was considered one of the most romantic places in Orange County.
Mr. Olsen stated the challenge was meeting the Police Department's requirement for foot candles
and the plan was not fully developed, but they would retain the feel of the rest of the campus.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for March 21, 2012
Page 23 of 34
There would be a blend of some of their signature lighting and some lit bollards. There would be
some subtle up lighting too.
Chair Woollett asked about up lighting along the sides?
Mr. Warren stated they would be filing under the new California Green code and they would not
be allowed to have any up lighting; they would not be able to illuminate the building and that
went into effect in July.
Committee Member McCormack suggested "moon lighting;" lighting that would shine down and
they could use that as ornaments in the trees. He asked about the Date Palm?
Mr. Olsen stated those were existing.
Committee Member Fox stated she had not shared Committee Member Wheeler's view of the
symmetry issue and she absolutely felt it was a brilliant asymmetrical design that cut the
intensity. She also felt that attempting to imitate history often created problems. She preferred
the more modern version of the tempietto that was on their rendering, rather than the one that
was less accurately attempting to get to a more historic look with signage on it; she was having a
problem with that. She had also read something about the four pillars representing something
and there were eight pillars.
Committee Member Wheeler stated they were the pillars of faith.
Committee Member Fox stated she felt the other rendering was more appropriate with the
proportion of the entablature to the columns worked better. She would vote in favor of the other
one and imagined it had evolved into the proposed design for a reason. On the parapets some
appeared only 6" high and she wanted to ensure there would not be any vents sticking out. The
cooling tower stuff was all in the back and she asked if there would be anything coming through?
Mr. Olsen stated everything was designed internally.
Committee Member Fox stated she had not found any colors called out for some of the features
along Glassell. There were metal panels and she asked what color those would be?
Mr. Murray stated those would match the brick. He reviewed the colors with the Committee
Members.
Committee Member Fox stated the brick application was gorgeous.
Committee Member Wheeler suggested a compromise on the tempietto; to use the same columns
that were used at the entry without the capitals and to have them a more simple design. It was
such a large span that would not have been done historically.
Mr. Ryan stated he understood they would be making a motion and he would ask for a
modification to Condition No. 6.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for March 21, 2012
Page 24 of 34
Committee Member Wheeler stated they could go to 40,000.
Chair Woollett stated his understanding that Staff could accept variances of that degree on their
own.
Senior Planner, Chad Ortlieb, stated the application was segmented as there were other
applications that went with the proposal before them; there was a Major Site Plan and a Variance
which would require additional reviews. They had placed conditions on all projects with full
disclosure to the applicants; the conditions were not necessarily all within the purview of the
DRC; if they would elect to remove a condition those could be discussed during additional
reviews.
Chair Woollett suggested that the Condition No. 6 be removed. Often times they had come upon
conditions that they had no purview over.
The Committee Members discussed a motion.
Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner, interrupted the DRC to confirm with the applicant that they were
only seeking deletion of a portion of Condition No. 6.
Verbatim text:
Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to recommend approval of DRC No. 4592 -11, to
the Zoning Administrator and the Community Development Director with conditions both to the
Zoning Administrator relative to the height request for certain walls and relative to the
Community Development Director for consideration of the project, subject to the findings and
conditions in the Staff Report, with the exception that the Committee feels that Condition No. 6
the last sentence of Condition No. 6 should be omitted with the additional suggestions as
follows: That the tempietto be restudied to perhaps use a simpler column form to match the
columns at the entry and that documentation be prepared to show the existing structures that
were to be demolished and present a copy of that to the history center of the public library.
Committee Member McCormack stated and that the landscaping recommendation as discussed
in the meeting to be considered as a suggestion.
SECOND: Carol Fox
AYES: Carol Fox, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for March 21, 2012
Page 25 of 34
(6) DRC No. 4595 -11 — THE ORANGE PACKING HOUSE
• A preliminary review of the adaptive reuse of the 1925 Orange Packing House for
apartment units, mini - storage, and retail uses, including the demolition of four non -
historic accessory buildings and the construction of three detached apartment buildings.
• 436 W. Almond Avenue, Old Towne Historic District
• Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, 714 - 744 -7224, dryan(a,cityoforange.org
• DRC Action: Preliminary Comments
Historic Preservation Planner, Dan Ryan, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff
Report.
Applicant, Leason Pomeroy, address on file, stated the proposed project was very unique and it
was important to him and to Lyle Shelton, who lived in it forever. It had an amazing
manufacturing facility after it was a citrus packing house. Mr. Shelton manufactured diving
equipment and he was a friend of Jacques Cousteau, who dove around the world. Before Mr.
Shelton owned the property, in 1925 his grandfather, Lincoln Frank McFinley, had managed the
property. He had not known that until the EIR work had begun. The big idea was to develop
some very unique high -end apartments. He presented a 3- dimensional model of the proposed
project and referred to it as he described the proposed property's features. There would be some
one -car garages and the apartments would have lofts with skylights. They were attempting to
save the brick wall. There was a basement that would provide for storage. The project met the
new zoning project for the Depot Specific Plan; they were the first ones in and they had been
working with the Planning Department to satisfy all the requirements. They were attempting to
save the building in its existing state. They were having some difficulties with the Fire
Department on exits and things of that nature. There were bedrooms that faced the railroad
tracks and they were working on ways to get ladders to those bedroom windows. Everything had
been going along quite smoothly; it had just taken a long time. The environmental work had
been going on forever and those continued and they were here before the DRC to get some
preliminary comments.
Public Comment
Jeff Frankel, address on file, representing the OTPA, stated it was a complicated project and they
were glad someone had tackled an adaptive use of the old packing house. It was one of the last
packing houses left and one of the most prominent and intact sites. Obviously they would want
to see limited changes in the building's openings, limited impact to the masonry, it seemed a bit
dense. If the property was zoned for 15 dwelling units per acre and he thought it was 30 at just
under 2 acres, it was one unit over. He had thought that they would not ever see apartments
being built, due to a huge battle during the 1980's and 1990's about apartments. They now had a
proposal for three apartment buildings and they were single -story and presented less of an
impact. Everything else would remain the same and he was not certain how they would get
around the ramp, as that was a major feature of the building. There had to be accommodations
for the new use. The review was preliminary and overall it was very dense. He asked what the
FAR was?
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for March 21, 2012
Page 26 of 34
Mr. Pomeroy stated it was 1.
Mr. Frankel stated the proposal maxed -out the property and he was not certain if that was a good
thing in a historic district. They had to take into consideration the impacts of traffic and noise.
The streets would not be able to be widened, they would remain the same and the proposal would
add at minimum 60 cars.
Mr. Pomeroy stated the ramp was not part of the packing house. That had been built for the
manufacturing business.
Mr. Frankel asked how was the lower level accessed?
Mr. Shelton stated by an elevator or stairs.
Larry Day, address on file, stated he was a lifetime resident of the City of Orange and he
remembered when he was in high school one of the kids was killed at that railroad connection.
He thought the project was great and he pointed to his house on the applicant's model. He was
hoping there was some parking relief and a solution to the drainage issue. The property for years
and years and been left alone and now he was pleased to see a project, he thanked the applicant.
Apartments were necessary and everyone wanted to live in Orange. It was a beautiful place.
Mr. Pomeroy stated on the drainage there was a 4" pipe that took in everything. The water had
to be diverted separately from the other water on the site.
Chair Woollett opened the item to the Committee for discussion.
Chair Woollett asked who would live in the apartments?
Mr. Pomeroy stated anyone, it could be students.
Chair Woollett asked about the train's vibration and all of that?
Mr. Ryan stated those issues were all covered in the environmental document for noise and
vibration.
Mr. Pomeroy stated it was a state requirement and they would not need to have high levels based
on the EIR. The noise and vibration levels were insignificant. If you stood in the building it
would not move and the only noise that was audible was the bell.
Chair Woollett stated the building had ventilation and natural lighting but you could not see out.
Mr. Pomeroy stated the sky was visible.
Committee Member Fox stated they were a New York loft design.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for March 21, 2012
Page 27 of 34
Mr. Pomeroy stated that was correct, that was what they were proposing. Through all the years
of people using the building, the floors all in their original form squeaked. They had found a
person who could restore the floors, and the squeaky floors added character to the building.
Committee Member Wheeler stated at a palace in Japan, they had what they called nightingale
floors. They were floors that squeaked to warn the guards of someone coming.
Mr. Pomeroy stated the building was magical and the lighting was so intense.
Chair Woollett asked how the apartments would fit in the rental scheme?
Mr. Pomeroy stated there would be a percentage of affordable housing in the project. They had
taken the zoning ordinance, which was 15 per acre, and it was designed for apartments, parked
for apartments and they were not asking for anything additional.
Mr. Shelton stated at one point the City passed rezoning, to allow for a density bonus of 35 %.
Chair Woollett stated that was what he was getting at, the density bonus.
Mr. Pomeroy stated there was a lot of unusual metal in the building and they would want to
create some sort of sculptural element to tie the two buildings together. There was some
amazing hardware and switch gear in the building; they wanted to preserve the great hardware.
Committee Member Wheeler asked if there was anything that would be a memento to the scuba
diving industry?
Committee Member Fox stated she had been all over the proposed property site and she had
walked through it with a restaurant guy. She loved the ramp, and if it was not originally historic
so be it. It was the best part of the building.
Mr. Shelton stated they had dug for that ramp and they had wanted to put the machine shop in
the basement with its cement floor and they had put a 110 ton punch press in there to stamp out
diving knives and spears. They manufactured everything for the diving industry. They put other
people's names on their equipment.
Committee Member Fox stated there was one thing that had been in one of the other buildings, it
was a track that had gone down the center, possibly something that was used in the packing
industry. She wondered what they would be using there? She had done the math for the density,
and 30 divided by 15.13, and if they went to 29 units they would be at 14.8, she wanted to make
that clear.
Mr. Pomeroy stated they would go with the density bonus.
Chair Woollett stated the numbers were rounded up.
Committee Member Fox stated she was concerned with the loading area of the storage units
being in the middle of the projects and having only one loading space. She had been to storage
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for March 21, 2012
Page 28 of 34
units and there was usually more than one person there at a time. People would be dragging
dusty stuff around and she wondered if there was another area for that service?
Mr. Pomeroy stated the Fire Department had wanted clearance in specific areas. Antique
businesses were still alive and they anticipated having those businesses using storage there and
based on the building's constant temperature, the building was theoretically marketable for wine
storage. He had not anticipated many trips to the storage. He had things in storage at Chapman
and the 55 freeway and that was an enormous storage place and generally he was the only one
there, there might be one other car coming in and out.
Chair Woollett asked what the finish of the building would be?
Mr. Pomeroy stated they were going to just clean it all up and have the natural brick finish on it.
It was a beautiful pure 1920 industrial building. The masonry had a retrofit in the 1980's and
that would be redone. There were some unsupported high walls and there were currently some
angle braces there that they would be removing. The walls had square old rebar and it was a
retaining wall and they could not load the earth against the building, they had to add a retaining
wall.
Committee Member Wheeler asked if they could use a different color pavement to remember the
ramp in that area, or some other material to let people know there had been something else there.
On the elevations there were some dotted lines around the windows and he asked if they were
using awnings and were those going on the north side?
Mr. Pomeroy stated yes.
Committee Member Fox stated in Unit 14 she noticed there was some type of counter top and
she asked if that was meant for a commercial tenant?
Mr. Pomeroy stated the intent was to have a full time on -site manager.
Committee Member Wheeler asked if the covered parking would be something industrial in
design?
Mr. Pomeroy stated yes, it would be something in steel, or corrugated metal.
Committee Member McCormack stated in reviewing the Fire access, he wondered how they
could separate what was looking like a second City street. He noticed that and he wondered if
there could be a turn - around, something to stop people from going through so fast.
Mr. Pomeroy stated bear in mind it was all one project and the people from both complexes
would share the amenities. There would be security and gates; it would not be a public street.
Committee Member McCormack asked if there was a way to make it appear more pedestrian and
less vehicular?
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for March 21, 2012
Page 29 of 34
Mr. Pomeroy stated he was wanting an enhanced paving strip that ran next to the building with
bollards and to have it be more of a streetscape.
Committee Member McCormack stated his reference was the Champs Elysees, where it was a
people space and cars ended up there. He would want the feel that the cars would be gingerly
allowed into that area and he was not certain how to arrive at that. They could use landscape and
street furniture, something that read "slow down." He suggested that the applicant explore that.
Mr. Pomeroy stated he had taken a comment from Committee Member McCormack on an earlier
project about using a major tree. He pointed out where that tree would be placed.
Committee Member Fox asked if they were going to treat the new apartments as "fake" historic?
Mr. Pomeroy stated no, the shell would be really nice; there would be awnings on the street side.
Committee Member Wheeler stated the Building Department would be their biggest hurdle, with
egress, and lighting and all of that.
Mr. Pomeroy stated his initial proposal had the buildings closer together, but the ordinances had
required that there be 20' of space between the buildings. The Fire Department was their biggest
problem.
Committee Member McCormack asked what an area on the model would be used for?
Mr. Pomeroy stated those were transformers and trash areas. He thanked the Committee
Members for their input.
The proposed project had not required a motion, as it was presented for preliminary review.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for March 21, 2012
Page 30 of 34
(7) DRC No. 4604 -11 — DAY RESIDENCE
• A proposal to remove an unpermitted 2nd unit and construct a 160 sq. ft. one -story
addition to the rear of a 1924 Mediterranean Revival residence.
• 415 W. Marietta Place, Old Towne Historic District
• Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, 714 - 744 -7224, dryan(aD rtyoforange.org
• DRC Action: Recommendation to the Zoning Administrator
Committee Member Wheeler suggested they consider that the item might be a proposal that they
were able to approve without discussion. He was not certain if there was public comment.
Public Comment
Jeff Frankel, address on file, representing the OTPA, stated they could go for it. If everything
was accurate in the Staff Report such as historic windows, appropriate materials and re- locating
where it was, it was a great project.
Chair Woollett stated he concurred with that.
Historic Preservation Planner, Dan Ryan, stated there was a condition in the Staff Report that the
applicant provide some catalogs or details for the garage door that they were proposing.
Everything else was fine.
Chair Woollett stated they could present a motion based on the findings and conditions presented
in the Staff Report.
Verbatim text:
Committee Member Fox stated she moved to approve DRC No. 4604 -11, Day Residence, with
the conditions that the garage door be submitted to Staff for approval.
SECOND: Craig Wheeler
AYES: Carol Fox, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for March 21, 2012
Page 31 of 34
(8) DRC No. 4610 -12 — FARMERS & MERCHANTS BANK
• A proposal to renovate the fagade of the exterior of the building.
• 1220 E. Katella Avenue
• Staff Contact: Doris Nguyen, 714 - 744 -7223, do ug_yen(a),cityoforange.org
• DRC Action: Final Determination
Associate Planner, Doris Nguyen, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report.
Applicant, Leslie Gentile, address on file, stated she was excited that they were finally at the
DRC, as they had a complete redesign of the building several years ago and she had been
nudging them ever since to make it happen.
Committee Member Wheeler stated it would be an improvement.
Committee Member Fox asked if the glazing and store front system would remain on the Katella
side?
Ms. Gentile stated yes.
Committee Member Fox stated the proposal was to match existing and were they certain that it
would match, the glazing and store front system?
Ms. Gentile stated it would be new, but it was bronze anodized and they felt it could be matched
pretty closely.
Committee Member Fox asked if she had ever used 2 Guard on store front systems?
Ms. Gentile stated no.
Committee Member Fox stated it was a treatment that made things look new, it was a patented
process.
Ms. Gentile stated she would be happy to have the requirement to clean the rest of the building.
Committee Member Fox stated if the glazing could not be an exact match, should they suggest
something distinctly different? It was a different proportion and she was fine with that, but it
could never be matched exactly.
Ms. Gentile stated the standard for the bank was evergreen for the glass and she was not certain
that would work. They could use clear.
The Committee Members reviewed the proposal and the existing design and details of the
building.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for March 21, 2012
Page 32 of 34
Committee Member Fox stated on a corner the light would never be the same and maybe it
would not appear so different. The anodized bronze would appear very new compared to the
existing material.
Ms. Gentile stated the glass could be either clear or a different intensity. The vertical treatment
was existing.
Committee Member Fox stated she could back off of that issue and just request that they match
existing as close as possible.
Ms. Gentile stated the blinds were generally closed and the glass would appear different.
Ms. Nguyen stated the top half of the blinds were generally closed.
Committee Member Wheeler suggested since they were adding the aluminum and tiles to the one
corner to spread it out and to use one of those materials for their pole sign. It would help to
move the materials around.
Ms. Gentile stated it was difficult with what materials and how much, before they were into the
whole building.
Committee Member McCormack stated the whole building was being redone and he was noting
the entry and he wondered if there was a way to modify the entry. If that little step entry could
be improved to a more formal entry that wrapped around. He had not liked steps that just ended.
Ms. Nguyen stated they had to stay out of the 10' setback.
Committee Member Wheeler stated they could use some sort of a raised planter.
Committee Member McCormack stated if the step just wrapped around it would provide for a
more formal entry.
Committee Member Fox pointed out another photo of the entrance.
Ms. Gentile stated there was some site work completed a few years ago and another ramp on the
north side as they could not achieve the proper slope for an ADA ramp and her concern with
changing the stairs was that there was a sidewalk and flag poles with a narrow width that would
not allow for changes.
Committee Member McCormack presented a drawing of what he was referring to for the
applicant to review.
Committee Member Wheeler stated there was a consistent motif with the stairs on the east
elevation as well.
Ms. Gentile stated she was happy to review their suggestions and send her findings and proposals
to them next week. Her concern was that there were other obstructions in that area.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for March 21, 2012
Page 33 of 34
Committee Member Wheeler suggested that they terminate the stairs at some sort of hedge.
Committee Member McCormack stated that would work. He was just making a suggestion for a
more articulated entry.
Ms. Gentile stated she would not have a problem approaching the bank with their suggestions.
She needed to verify the clearance available.
Committee Member Fox stated it would be more of a plinth; banks were always sitting on a
plinth.
Committee Member McCormack stated that was what he was referring to, to add a bit of
formality. That was a suggestion and he was totally in support of the proposal.
Committee Member Wheeler stated he would want to add a condition that the pole sign be faced
with one of the two materials from the building.
Committee Member Fox stated that she would also want to condition that the existing bronze on
the store front system be cleaned.
Committee Member McCormack stated his was a suggestion to re -work the entry.
Verbatim text.
Committee Member Fox stated she moved to approve DRC No. 4610 -12, Farmers & Merchants
Bank, with the conditions as follows.
Chair Woollett stated you need to include the recommendations and findings.
Committee Member Fox stated she moved to approve, DRC No. 4610 -12, based on the findings
presented in the Staff Report and with the conditions presented in the Staff Report in addition
that the store front glazing that is to remain to be cleaned, and that the base of the pole sign the
finish on that base to be changed to one of the other finishes that was being proposed for the
building remodel and that the design for the stairs at the ATM location be taken into
consideration to create a more of a plinth effect at the corner and to address the corner.
SECOND: Tim McCormack
AYES: Carol Fox, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for March 21, 2012
Page 34 of 34
ADJOURNMENT:
Committee Member Fox made a motion to adjourn to the next regular scheduled Design Review
Committee meeting on April 4, 2012.
SECOND: Tim McCormack
AYES: Carol Fox, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED.
Meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.