2012-04-18 DRC Final Minutes CITY OF ORANGE
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
MINUTES - FINAL
April 18, 2012
Committee Members Present: Carol Fox
Robert Imboden
Tim McCormack
Craig Wheeler
Joe Woollett
Committee Members Absent: None
Staff in Attendance: Chad Ortheb, Senior Planner
Robert Garcia, Associate Planner
Dan Ryan, Historic Preservation Planner
Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary
Administrative Session — 5:00 P.M.
Chair Woollett opened the Administrative Session at 5:08 p.m. with a review of the Agenda. He
stated that no additional packet information had been received on the Salem Lutheran item, and
he asked if there had been any changes?
Associate Planner, Robert Garcia, stated in the attachment the changes were noted.
Committee Member Wheeler stated he would recuse himself from Item No. 6, Orange Senior
Center, as he was the architect on the project.
Senior Planner, Chad Ortlieb, stated there were no changes to the Agenda.
The Committee Members reviewed the minutes from the Design Review Committee Meeting of
March 21, 2012. Corrections and changes were noted.
Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to adjourn the Administrative Session.
SECOND: Tim McCormack
AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED.
Administrative Session adjourned at 5:29 p.m.
Regular Session - 5:30 P.M.
ROLL CALL:
All Committee Members were present.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for April 18, 2012
Page 2 of 30
Senior Planner, Chad Orlieb, stated that the City's Community Service Director, who was
present for Agenda Item No.6 had another meeting to attend, and Staff was requesting that Item
No. 6 be moved up in the agenda.
Chair Woollett stated they would hear that item first.
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:
(1) Approval of Minutes: March 21, 2012
Committee Member Fox made a motion to approve the minutes from the regular scheduled
meeting of the Design Review Committee on March 21, 2012 with changes and corrections
noted during the Administrative Session.
SECOND: Craig Wheeler
AYES: Carol Fox, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Robert Imboden
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for April 18, 2012
Page 3 of 30
AGENDA ITEMS:
Continued Items
(2) DRC No. 4538 -11 - SALEM LUTHERAN CHURCH & SCHOOL
• A proposal of a Specific Plan for Salem Lutheran. The Specific Plan provides for a
redesign of the church and school campus with a new worship center that includes a
sanctuary, conference and meeting rooms, and administrative offices.
• 6500 E. Santiago Canyon Road
• Staff Contact: Robert Garcia, 714- 744 -7231, rgarcia(i cit ooforange.org
• Previous DRC Review: March 7, 2012
• DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission
Associate Planner, Robert Garcia, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report.
Applicant, Mike Madden, address on file, stated he had no additional comments. He had two
landscape professionals with him to answer any questions pertaining to landscape.
Public Comment
Christine Rosenow, address on file, stated she appreciated the Committee's insight from the last
DRC meeting and the neighbors were truly appreciative of the landscape and architecture. In the
1998 CUP it was stated that the facility should be shrouded in shrubbery and a forest of green;
and it was not. There were wire fences and things such as that. It was confusing for the
residents as they were discussing the plan that was before them, they had plans and the applicant
had plans and they had not known to what plan they were speaking to and who they should be
speaking to. They were, what they had thought, in the midst of communication with the Salem
representatives, but then the DRC meeting came about. She was requesting that no decisions be
made until they could come back with the revisions. The applicant was revising the plans and
she could not understand how a decision could be made on plans that were being revised. The
entrance off of Santiago was a huge issue. She was on the OPA Board and now she was a very
active member of the Real Estate Board and the Santiago issue was of great concern. The horse
community was greatly concerned at having such a wide gap with 50 to 60 mile an hour traffic
so near. Just last week there was a huge accident. She was also requesting to see a copy of the
letter that had been submitted. She asked that any decision making be postponed until more
information was received.
Chair Woollett stated there still appeared to be some confusion by public participants about the
action the DRC was taking. The plans before them were not final plans, the plans were being
submitted to establish some guidelines for design and when the final plans were prepared, the
design plans, they would return to the DRC. They were currently dealing with the design rules
and not so much the specific design and they were dealing with the rules that would guide the
design.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for April 18, 2012
Page 4 of 30
Ms. Rosenow stated the confusion was that if the plans were changing weren't the rules
changing? If a decision was made the project would move to the Planning Commission and it
was a powerful signature that they would be sending, as representatives of the Community,
which they approved of the plan as presented. Her concern was that with any stamp of approval,
when the plans were not solidified, and there were many plans in the works and they were on
plans 4, 5 and 6. They were not on the same plan. Salem had presented plans to the Salem
community that differed from the plans that were being presented before the DRC. There was a
plan that showed the relocation of Fowler House due to mold issues and a plan that had a
Santiago Canyon entrance removed. They had been doing this for some time; the plans were
continually changing.
Chair Woollett asked Mr. Garcia if he was aware that there were multiple plans?
Mr. Garcia stated he was aware that the applicant and applicant's representatives had met with
the community, and they continued to meet with the OPA and OPA Board.
Liberty Grayson, address on file, stated he was a resident that was impacted by the Salem
development. He was present to discuss the 7 objectives that the City had required of Salem and
which none of the plans that Salem submitted had fulfilled. Salem needed to come up with a
plan that encapsulated the minimum requirements the City encouraged Salem to presume and
rightly so, Salem had a chance to positively work with its neighbors and lesson Salem's impact
on the community and be an inviting place that brought together the equestrian, OPA and
residential communities. Salem needed to tap its best resource, the neighbors. The project
objectives under 2.2.3 The Salem School's Specific Plan Executive Summary were as follows:
1. Obtain the most suitable land use pattern for the campus with a functional and aesthetic
relationship.
2. Ensure the quality appearance for Salem Church with consistent design and visual
improvements and blending proposed facility with existing facility.
3. An efficient internal circulation system to alleviate unnecessary project traffic overflow
onto adjacent streets while ensuring the functional needs of the campus.
4. Maintain comparative on site open space and recreational amenities of the campus while
meeting the program's needs.
5. Provide a comprehensive well rounded master plan for the property that addressed
environmental, water quality, circulation and public facility and services.
6. Create a water quality drainage system that minimized off site receiving waters.
7. Incorporate a sustainable design technique in the redesign plans for the campus.
In most cases Salem's plan had not met those objectives, but the neighbors plans met or
surpassed the objectives, in many instances in phases that could be implemented quickly while
keeping Salem operating. On April 19, 2012 the residents would be meeting with the Salem
representatives for the first time in 5 years to discuss the resident's plan for east Frank Lane and
the Salem development. If Salem worked with the community until the changes were
implemented there would not be as much distain and opposition. Salem could have the best plan
possible if Salem used its most valuable resource, the neighbors and community.
Chair Woollett asked where the 7 items had been pulled from?
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for April 18, 2012
Page 5 of 30
Mr. Grayson stated they were from Salem Lutheran's Specific Plan Executive Summary, on
pages 2 -3, section 2.2.3.
Tom Grayson, address on file, stated he was a resident of Frank Lane. He stated he was
addressing the issues of the plan, based on his 35 years of experience as a Project Manager of
Cal State Fullerton, he just recently retired. He had observed many issues about safety and
liability. He would address some of those issues with the Salem plan. One of the main
objectives of any project would be to implement in its design a facility with minimum liability to
the University, minimum liability was what he wanted to address in the Specific Plan. The
Salem Lutheran Church and School was not a community church and school, it was a commuter
church and school and there were 500 vehicles that went in and out of the site. With any facility
there was functionality that needed to be built into the design. His 35 years of Cal State
Fullerton experience dictated that the design needed to be incorporated into the physical
elements into the function. The purpose of that was to leave it up to human programs or human
management that had not worked. In a very short time all good intentions would go out the
window and liability emerged. Cal State Fullerton developed policies to build into each project a
functionality element that would minimize the reliance on human management for issues that
concerned liability. The resident's plan had gone to considerable lengths to eliminate liability.
He and his wife had been taking photos and sending them to City Staff and they were very
concerned with what went on at Salem. One could not rely on good intentions and that had been
shown with Salem not working with the residents. Salem needed to function independently with
minimal impact to the community. Salem was not able to function within its own boundaries.
The resident plan would go a long way in creating an environmental optimal envelope for the
Salem school, the commuters, the community, the horses and residents. Please postpone any
decisions until the residents were able to present their plan to the Salem representatives.
Laura Thomas, address on file, stated she was president of OPA and they had met with the Salem
representatives and they would continue to do that. Recently between those meetings the
neighbors had gotten together and created a project concept. When they met last time with
Salem representatives they asked for a meeting with the neighbors as they had a thoughtful plan.
The timing presented itself with some members not available and the meeting was set for April
19, 2012. She was asking for a postponement of any final decision or vote on the proposed
Salem project before them. She had read through the minutes and she felt it was worth the time
to step back and allow the community to work together and understand the ideas. It was an
opportunity for the neighbors, Salem, and OPA to work together to bring something that would
make things right.
Linda Cunningham, address on file, stated she concurred with the previous speakers and she
hoped that the DRC would postpone any decisions on the proposed projects until they met with
the Salem representatives with their plan; it was a beautiful plan that addressed every issue that
had been out there for several years and would be a win -win for everyone.
Chair Woollett opened the item to the Committee for discussion. He asked Mr. Madden to
address the upcoming meeting to be held with the residents and the plan that had been brought
up during the Public Comment portion of the meeting.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for April 18, 2012
Page 6 of 30
Mr. Madden stated in 2008, before he was involved, there had been meetings with several
residents and from that meeting an email memo was put together with the concerns and issues.
The last plan that had been presented to the DRC in 2006 or 2007, and the memo that
subsequently followed raised some issues. There was a request for access to Santiago, request
for physical separation on Frank Lane, to review the circulation and parking, to review the
location of the worship center and from that memo concept diagrams were put together that were
in the Specific Plan. Those addressed step by step how the issues and concerns would be
addressed. The concept plans moved forward. The team decision, in conversations with Salem
and the neighbors was to move forward with the concepts that were in the plan being proposed to
the DRC. At some point in time the Specific Plan and EIR had to move forward to allow the
process to begin. For the design and entitlement processes there were reviews, comments and
recommendations; the NOI and draft EIR had gone out and they received comments from the
neighbors and they had been meeting with the neighbor groups, the OPA groups and they had
met in November to speak to the plan. There were ideas about the Santiago entry and it might
not be the best idea as there were concerns about the horses and impacts to the horse trail. There
were other alternatives proposed. There was discussion about demolishing Fowler House and
moving the preschool. There was discussion regarding Frank Lane. There were many opinions
and they took the comments and had met in November, February and on March 29 and they took
the ideas and discussed how the concerns would be addressed. Input as they received from all
sources would be taken into consideration and the plans were reviewed with the groups and they
were pleased with the plan, they met with City Staff to review the issues that they were
addressing with the community and some of the ideas presented. At the March 29 meeting with
the OPA there had been indication that the neighbors had put together a plan and they wanted to
meet to review that plan. That meeting would take place on April 19, 2012. As new ideas were
presented the process would continue to move forward with all the information received and in
the end they would have a plan that satisfied the most people before they went before the City
Council. The final plan would take into consideration the input from City Staff, community
meetings, through DRC and Planning Commission recommendations and eventual
recommendations from the City Council. During the process the plan would change with
conditions that would apply and it was part of the process.
Chair Woollett stated the plans before them represented Salem's response to their own objectives
and with what had been presented to them by the community in the past. He asked if the Salem
representatives had met with any community groups since the last DRC meeting.
Mr. Madden stated no.
Mr. Garcia stated Staff had reviewed the resubmitted plans that responded to comments made at
the previous DRC meeting; they had the environmental documents and a Specific Plan that was
before them. The plan was conceptual and there could be changes to that plan. They were
reviewing the standards and guidelines of the Specific Plan, the written documents and not the
drawings, the documents that set the guidelines for the plans. Potentially there could be changes
to the plans, however, they would still need to comply with the standards and guidelines. They
were moving along with the process.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for April 18, 2012
Page 7 of 30
Committee Member Fox stated the DRC was evaluating the draft EIR, Specific Plan and a
conceptual site plan. She asked if they could present a forward motion on the draft EIR and
Specific Plan, separate from the conceptual plan?
Mr. Garcia stated as a Planner they would be reviewing the plan to ensure that they complied
with the written documents.
Chair Woollett stated there could be other drawings that complied with the written documents,
plans that could differ from the plans that were before them.
Senior Planner, Chad Ortlieb, stated that was correct. They could parse out their
recommendations to the Planning Commission and City Council in any manner that they chose.
Chair Woollett stated the DRC's action would be based on what was before them.
Committee Member Fox stated on any revisions or modifications to the plans that the applicant
might have based on the meeting with the neighbors, those would go back through Staff review
for traffic circulation issues.
Mr. Garcia stated that was correct, any subsequent plans would be reviewed to ensure that they
complied with the language in the Specific Plan and the environmental documents.
Committee Member Wheeler stated if the plans changed considerably and the Specific Plan
would no longer apply what would the next step be?
Mr. Garcia stated an amendment to the Specific Plan would be required with the plan being
brought back to the DRC for their review.
Committee Member Wheeler stated they could discuss the conceptual plan before them with the
understanding that as the plan evolved with any significant changes that it would return to the
DRC for review.
Chair Woollett asked the community members if the plan that they were proposing to present to
the Salem's representatives would change any aspects of the Specific Plan?
Mr. Grayson stated he was not familiar with the language of the Specific Plan. The proposal to
the neighbors would alter traffic patterns, impact on the community, the existing structures and
their proposal was a phased plan. There were plans that he had reviewed from the Salem
representatives that could be incorporated into what the neighbors proposed.
Chair Woollett stated the DRC would be going through the process for the Specific Plan for
Salem Lutheran and there would be more highly developed drawings at a future date. The
purview of the DRC was only for a portion of the Specific Plan which was primarily for
aesthetics. There were other issues that would be dealt with at the Planning Commission level.
They wanted to be responsive to the community's concerns, but also to the task before them and
the process.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for April 18, 2012
Page 8 of 30
Committee Member Fox stated the Specific Plan had many objectives and language that was
very good and she believed the plan that was being presented was not a good match with the
objectives of the Specific Plan. For her there were many issues with the plan; but there were
smaller issues in the Specific Plan and possibly they could come together on some agreement to
making changes to the Specific Plan and not the site plan.
Chair Woollett stated there were site plans included in the Specific Plan.
Committee Member Fox stated she was not ready to approve the Specific Plan as presented, but
it was closer to where they needed to be. The objectives were clear it needed good circulation
and separation on Frank Lane and there were many objectives that were very clear.
Chair Woollett asked if there were some specific changes she wanted to address?
Committee Member Fox stated there was a modification to the preschool going from a 32' to 26'
height and she agreed with that. There were some changes that had been made to color choices
and those had been handled well. There were other issues that the applicants had not agreed with
and those needed to be discussed further. The issue on chain link, the height limit of the worship
center and there were some landscape issues.
Committee Member McCormack stated there was a landscape menu, but not a plant selection. In
specific areas there was one candidate that would be head and shoulders above the rest.
Committee Member Fox stated there was also the issue on the Frank Lane median and she was
not in favor of the wording that was proposed. The part that was not acceptable was that in
reading the proposed language it would appear that enhanced paving and Bott's dots would be
acceptable as a combination.
Committee Member Wheeler stated he had the same concern, however, he realized that the plan
would be returning to the DRC with that specific design. The information before them was
setting the standard and guidelines of what could be used. They would review a final design.
Mr. Garcia stated the plan would come back for a Staff review and not necessarily return to the
DRC.
Committee Member Fox stated if that was the case then the language needed to include the
requirement for split rail fence and that should be in the Specific Plan.
Committee Member Wheeler stated he would propose a condition that the plan needed to return
to the DRC.
Chair Woollett stated in the Specific Plan there were items listed and the applicant often would
take the attitude that they could choose from that in any manner that they wished; the view from
the DRC was that there could be a requirement for specific items.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for April 18, 2012
Page 9 of 30
Committee Member McCormack stated that would be the case if all items were equal, but many
times that was not the case. With the plant palette, most of the choices were equal and picking
one tree over another could work.
Chair Woollett stated with Bott's dots they could choose just to use those and none of the other
choices listed for the Frank Lane separation elements.
Committee Member McCormack stated there needed to be a hierarchy of what needed to be
installed, such as the split rail fence which needed to be there and they could add enhanced
paving and Bott's dots if they chose those.
Committee Member Fox stated they could condition that a split rail fence be used with breaks as
needed and the use of Bott's dots and enhanced paving for those areas; and with the majority to
be split rail with the opportunity to use other elements for emergency access and such.
Chair Woollett stated in their action they needed to be specific.
Mr. Madden stated on the design and separation of Frank Lane it carried many opinions. Some
of the comments that they had heard were that the residents wanted the separation, others wanted
openings and others preferred just the Bott's dots. There were notes regarding previous meetings
and the general consensus was that there should be options for providing the lane separation. As
the plan came together with all the input for the design of Frank Lane; personally he believed
there should be the split rail fence with some openings, but the ultimate design for that area
would be a combination of one or all of the different materials of split rail fence, enhanced
paving and Bott's dots.
Chair Woollett stated that particular issue would be one that the DRC should reserve any final
action on.
Committee Member Imboden stated in light of what the applicant had just stated it was within
the purview of the DRC to make a determination such as an approval of the project would
include split rail fence, with additional materials as determined and the details would not need to
be left open.
Mr. Garcia stated that was correct.
Committee Member Fox stated the height of the worship center was also an issue and she
believed 39' was too high and that 36' was a better height limit. It created a hierarchy for the
sanctuary, but not such a looming mass. She thought possibly a setback might be imposed where
the peak would be allowed to avoid having a 39' peak right up against the property. It might be
a way to layer in a condition to avoid having the mass right up against neighboring residential
properties.
Committee Member Wheeler stated his primary issue was the chain link fence. He presented
photos of where the fence posts had been welded together to add an additional 6' to the fence. In
his calculation, the fence worked at 6', but at 12' the fence would not work structurally and with
vines, as proposed, added to the 12' mass it would create a safety hazard and having the fence
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for April 18, 2012
Page 10 of 30
fall over in a heavy wind. He was opposed to the chain link fence, visually, and the other fences
in the neighborhood appeared to have been there for quite some time. There were some new
colored ones around tennis courts and so forth. To approve chain link because others existed in
the neighborhood was not a good argument as the DRC had not approved any of the existing
chain link fences in that area. They would not have approved a chain link fence in Orange as it
was against the rules. The fence needed to go. Another argument that had been presented by the
applicant in favor of having the chain link fence was to have a boundary for the ball play field
areas. At the last meeting he had suggested the use of tubular steel fencing, except where ball
control was needed, and for those areas to use rectangular pre- coated fabric fences. There were
many around Disneyland and Knott's Berry Farm and those would provide for ball control and
be much more attractive. That type of fencing might not comply with the OPA guidelines, but it
was a much better choice than the use of chain link. He was prepared to offer a condition as
follows: That the applicant not install new chain link fencing at the north end of the property,
but instead to install new 8' maximum height steel tube fencing in that area and that all existing
chain link shall be removed and replaced with maximum 6' height square tube fencing, except in
the area where ball control was necessary, those areas could have welded wire fabric fencing
with a maximum height to be determined by the zoning code with the color of the mesh to
match the steel tube fencing. He believed the 12' height was an existing non - conforming
condition.
Mr. Madden stated with the school kids at play there was a lot that could be done with tubular
steel and he was not certain why the 12' height had existed. In terms of the vine on chain link,
that was seen everywhere and it was done successfully. The issue of seeing through the fence or
not seeing through the fence, there were hedge rows along Santiago Canyon in front of the
fencing. There was ground cover and vegetation along Orange Park Acres. The other thing that
was important was along the equestrian facility was that there was a 30' plus drop there and if
the fencing had to be changed along that area that it should be secure fencing. There was a
visual and a far less visual edge. If the fencing needed to be changed he would want a
recommendation be added. The chain link that existed had been there for a long time and served
a purpose in keeping kids safe. The 12' stretch could be taken down and if the Committee felt
strongly about the condition of that fence they could make a recommendation to the Planning
Commission.
Committee Member Fox stated she would not approve the proposal with the chain link fencing.
Mr. Madden stated Committee Member Fox had asked for some examples of where the chain
link fence occurred and there was some with Bougainvillea across the street and it was fully
covered.
Committee Member Fox stated there was a code that dictated no chain link fencing.
Mr. Garcia stated the Specific Plan allowed for chain link fencing.
Committee Member Imboden stated he agreed that the 12' portion of fence had to be dealt with,
and he was not certain as the fence existed that it was a safe condition for the children. One of
the vines that had been chosen for the fence was Wisteria and that would not be an appropriate
vine, it would not be attractive in the winter and would rip the fence apart in a matter of a few
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for April 18, 2012
Page 11 of 30
years. It would not be a proper vine treatment for that fence and should be removed from the
plan language. There was discussion about a masonry wall on page 7 of the Staff Report, that
discussed the height of the masonry wall of 6' to 10' high, it was in the minutes, the Specific
Plan it stated a maximum height of 8'. The Specific Plan only referenced a portion of the wall
and would they want to limit the height of all walls in the Specific Plan language. If the Specific
Plan remained silent on a height limit, would the City ordinance need to be followed as it
pertained to height limits of fences?
Mr. Garcia stated that was correct, with a maximum height being 6'.
Chair Woollett asked "maximum for low side and maximum for high side ?"
Mr. Ortlieb stated "high side 10', low side 6'."
Committee Member Imboden asked Mr. Garcia if Staff was under the conviction that the
proposed plan complied with the City standards?
Mr. Garcia stated yes.
Committee Member Imboden asked as the Specific Plan remained silent, the City standards
would need to be adhered to for any new fencing?
Mr. Garcia stated yes, they would need to be at a 6' maximum height.
Committee Member Imboden stated he wanted to ensure that the applicant understood that. He
was not clear on exterior lighting, and he understood the plan before them was conceptual. The
lighting was noted as being submitted for Site Plan Review, which was an administrative process
and those details would not go back to the DRC for review. There was another area that it was
noted that the plan would return to the DRC and he was wanting clarification on the process.
Mr. Garcia stated the lighting would go through a department Site Plan Review and also to the
Orange Police Department for their review. The details for lighting would not typically return to
the DRC.
Committee Member Imboden stated on the issue of lighting, the language for parking lot lighting
stated it shall avoid spillage of light and he would prefer the word prevent be used, rather than
avoid; as the word avoid would indicate that spillage might still occur and prevent would mean it
would not occur. On reconstruction, in the event of a calamity; and that language was used a
number of times; should Salem Lutheran choose to demolish a building and build a new one
there was no provision for that and the language should cover other situations. With the items
that came back that had not been in agreement with what the DRC had recommended he would
leave those issues up to the other DRC members, as he was not present for that initial discussion.
He had agreed with the comments that had been made and he agreed with having some control
with the height limits and the fence issues that had been discussed.
Committee Member McCormack stated from a landscape perspective he had been anxious to
review the plans and he was having trouble with the Specific Plan; on the cross section there was
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for April 18, 2012
Page 12 of 30
a statement that there was a 4' shoulder and 16' double lane, and he understood that a fire lane
was 25'. In the initial Staff Report it called for a 26' paved traffic surface and was there a
discrepancy on where the split rail fence was intended to be installed per fire requirements?
Unless there was a hardship, the fire access could go to 20'. He was coming up with some
discrepancies when he reviewed the daily flow for the school. He pointed out a tree that would
not be able to remain with the proposed daily church circulation and he wondered why they had
not received the rest of the plan. The plan for Frank Lane was not complete and in reviewing the
turn around area there was not complete information for that.
Mr. Madden stated there was not a proposal for a turnaround. In entering the preschool, there
was a hammerhead turn around for the Fire Department.
Committee Member McCormack stated there were in -bound lanes and 2 out bound lanes, the
traffic came in and there needed to be some type of turn around lane.
Mr. Madden stated as it was a preschool those parents would need to park. The Fire Department
emergency lane was on the north side and explained in exhibit 4.14. The Fire Department had
reviewed that access.
Committee Member McCormack stated the edge was an asphalt and fence edge without a
landscape edge to it. There was nothing to mitigate the fence and the Specific Plan had a notation
for mitigation of fencing.
Mr. Madden stated they were asked not to touch that edge.
Committee Member McCormack stated he was not certain how the Specific Plan would be
applied to that situation. His biggest concern was about the field and getting bigger trees there
and the ground plane treatment. The plan was difficult to read. There was a 5' tree well and
another 18" on each side. With that space for a Sycamore tree, he was hoping to get a little more
of a ground plane gesture, which was not so urban. There was a tree well, then the concrete and
there was 41' of asphalt before the architecture. There might be some other landscape treatment
for the edges. The Sycamores and Eucalyptus trees were the prominent natural landscape
aesthetic. There may be something more that could be done around that paved area. The trees
would need to be maintained and the ground plane needed some relief.
Mr. Madden stated there was criteria for a student play area in the parking area, and those would
also be used for sports courts and there was the multi purpose area with the play field that was
also used for parking. They attempted to incorporate the flavor of the entrance along Santiago to
wrap that around the parking lot to create separation between the parking lot and play courts. It
was a less formal arrangement than initially presented, but to still respect the parameters of the
play court area. At the conceptual level they wanted to set the tone for what the landscape would
need to be.
Committee Member McCormack stated if they chose not to green up the ground plane further, he
suggested for the large trees where the roots were forced under the concrete to use structural soil.
It was a proprietary element developed at Cornel University. The material was a soil that would
allow the tree roots to migrate under the concrete to find their water source.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for April 18, 2012
Page 13 of 30
Mr. Madden stated those were recommendations that could move forward.
Committee Member McCormack stated with turf planted in sand there needed to be a lot of
water to keep the turf alive. With the water use calculation, he suggested that the turf not be
labeled as moderate water use, but a high water use. The playing field was needed, but the
amount of water that was needed for the turf area as proposed would be high.
Mr. Madden stated they had prepared a preliminary water usage report.
Committee Member McCormack stated he was suggesting that they review the report to
understand that the water usage would be extremely high. The Sycamores should be those
chosen from column A. The only other change that he suggested was on the bio retention areas,
the plant choices were good, but it lacked the most important plant that would reside at the
bottom of the retention area. The choice would be for a plant that could withstand being under
water, his choice would be Leymus. He had stood at the Fowler House and there were some big
pipes and he wondered where the water would go; he assumed that area would have a significant
revision.
Mr. Madden asked if he had reviewed the hydrology plan and analysis in the EIR? Some of the
water was put into zones with other areas captured in storm water and piped out. All of that had
been taken into consideration and was included in section 4.5 of the draft EIR.
Chair Woollett stated he wanted to address the comments already brought forth.
Mr. Garcia stated in Chapter 7 of the Specific Plan it addressed the implementation and
administration of the proposal, specifically section 8.4.4 and the site plan review submittal
process. There was a list for required information and items that would be added to encompass
such items as the Bott's dots and light standards; those could be recommendations for additions
to those lists if the Committee chose to do that.
Chair Woollett stated he understood that after the Site Plan Review process the plan might not
necessarily return to the DRC.
Mr. Garcia stated after the Site Plan Review it would come back to the DRC. They could add
anything additional that they wanted to review, such as a comprehensive sign program.
Chair Woollett stated the DRC had a choice to attempt to put together their various comments in
an action or to continue the item with a request by Staff to compile those comments; and he felt
per the discussion that no Committee Member had taken issue with the concerns that had been
brought forth.
Committee Member Fox stated she still had an issue with the massing and height issue on the
worship center and she was wanting to discuss mitigation measures for that height. The
elevation and site plan presented had not mitigated the height as there had been some large trees
added to one side of the building. It affected her ability to approve the Specific Plan with the
height limits proposed.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for April 18, 2012
Page 14 of 30
Chair Woollett stated he had previously stated there were good reasons for the 39' height based
on the type of building it was. Since that time there had been a review of another project, the
Chapman University's Performing Arts building where the floor of that building had been
lowered to mitigate the appearance. If the height of the building was lowered from 39' to 36' the
floor could be lowered and it would not necessarily change the interior space.
Committee Member Fox stated they were pleased with the alternate plan that had been presented
at the last DRC review; the building had been placed closer to Santiago and in that situation the
height would be more appropriate.
Chair Woollett stated the proximity of the building to Santiago, as he understood it, was a huge
neighborhood issue. The neighbors on the south side of Frank Lane would see the height, but the
neighbors on the other side were concerned with seeing the building from Santiago.
Mr. Garcia stated that had been an issue in the submittal back in 2006.
Committee Member Fox stated the problem could be solved for both of those issues with a
height reduction.
A member of the public spoke, Ms. Cunningham asked if the DRC was aware that the Salem
property was already elevated and the height would actually be closer to 40- something feet.
Chair Woollett stated they would need to review where the measurement was taken from. If the
building was on a mound it could be higher. There would be a site plan submission that would
return to the DRC at a later date.
Committee Member Fox stated the Specific Plan would remain with the project and the site plan
would change, especially in light of the meeting that would be held with the community. It
would be helpful to nail down recommendations for the Specific Plan.
Mr. Garcia stated that was what Staff was looking for.
Chair Woollett stated there were issues that had been raised by the neighbors and many of the
issues such as traffic were not within their purview. The DRC had a choice, to provide a
recommendation with some specific requests related to the design issues that related to the
Specific Plan and not the conceptual drawings. They could address some specific items and
move the project to the Planning Commission, understanding that the plan details would return to
the DRC. There were some items that would be left more open than they might want them to be,
such as the fencing and division of Frank Lane.
Committee Member Fox stated there were several little parts.
Chair Woollett stated the DRC could review their notes and the issues that had been presented
and attempt to put those comments together as conditions or recommendations with further
discussion to ensure that all the components of the project and the concerns raised were
addressed.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for April 18, 2012
Page 15 of 30
Committee Member Fox stated they would be making a motion on the Specific Plan and the draft
EIR and not the site plan?
Chair Woollett stated the site plan was included in the Specific Plan.
Committee Member Fox stated they would need to make recommendations that would be
acceptable to them, understanding that the site plan would return.
Mr. Garcia stated the recommendations would need to be tied to the Specific Plan in order to
move the item to the Planning Commission and they needed to avoid getting too caught up in the
conceptual plan.
Chair Woollett stated any comments that were gathered from the community meetings would be
shared with the Planning Commission.
Committee Member Fox stated there were several items in the memorandum from Salem, such
as the chain link that the DRC would be rejecting.
Mr. Madden stated it was a Specific Plan and the site plan was referenced in the documents of
that plan; they spoke about the fencing, building height and landscape and it would be very
helpful to put their concerns or requests into a recommendation to the Planning Commission with
language that would cover what the DRC was desiring.
The Committee Members reviewed and discussed their comments and concerns to put together a
motion.
Mr. Garcia stated, for the applicant's clarification, the DRC would also want to see a
comprehensive sign program that would include way finding and the aesthetic elements of colors
and materials. He asked if that would want to be brought back with the site plan review or in a
separate presentation?
Committee Member McCormack stated he would want to see it as it pertained to other elements,
such as if there would be signage on the split rail fence. It would be a big design element.
Verbatim text:
Committee Member Wheeler made motion to recommend approval to the Planning Commission
of DRC No. 4538 -11, Salem Lutheran Church and School, subject to the conditions in the Staff
Report and subject to the findings in the Staff Report with the following conditions as
recommended to the Planning Commission:
• First, that the height of the worship center be reduced to 36'.
• Second, that the separation on Frank Lane that was shown to be made up of split rail
fencing, textured pavement, Bott's dots with the final details of that separation to be
submitted to the DRC as part of the Site Plan Review.
• The applicant shall not install new chain link fencing in the northwest portion of the
property and instead install new 6' maximum height square tube fencing in that area and
that all existing chain link fencing to be removed and replaced with new square tube 6'
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for April 18, 2012
Page 16 of 30
fencing, except where ball control fencing in the athletic field is required and that to be
pre- finished rectangular welded wire fabric fencing with a maximum height of 6' with
color of welded wire fabric fencing and support posts to match the new steel tube
fencing.
• Next recommended condition that exterior lighting design to return to the DRC as part of
the Site Plan Review.
• Next item reconstruction of any structures on the property can be for reasons other than
calamity.
• Next item that the sign program for the project to be resubmitted to this Committee at Site
Plan Review.
• Mr. Garcia stated on the sign program to be a comprehensive sign program to include
way finding, directional and those details to include that.
Committee Member Wheeler stated he would include that. And in addition to those
recommended conditions they had some other recommendations:
• one that structural soil be employed at the
Committee Member McCormack stated that should be a condition.
Chair Woollett stated:
• where trees would be planted adjacent to pavement.
Committee Member Wheeler stated all right, with the following recommendations:
• that the Sycamore to be the major tree.
Committee Member McCormack stated that should be a condition.
Committee Member Wheeler stated okay up that to a condition:
• on the plant material, add that one at the bottom of the retention basin.
Committee Member McCormack stated:
• the plant material at the bottom of the retention basin to be Leymus.
Committee Member Wheeler asked if there was any other?
Mr. Garcia stated they had spoken about the Wisteria not being used.
Committee Member Fox stated they would not have that as there would be no chain link fence.
Committee Member Imboden stated he had no aversion to Wisteria; he had an aversion to
Wisteria on a chain link fence.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for April 18, 2012
Page 17 of 30
SECOND: Carol Fox
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
Meeting Minutes for April 18, 2012
Page 18 of 30
(3) DRC No. 4528 -11 — LOTUS WELLNESS CENTER
• The applicant is proposing modifications to the exterior elevations of an approved
proposal by the DRC on August 3, 2011 for the expansion to an existing commercial
building for a chiropractic and acupuncture center.
• 900 E. Lincoln Avenue
• Staff Contact: Robert Garcia, 714 - 744 -7231, rgarcia(a )cit ooforange.org
• Previous DRC Review: August 3, 2011 & April 4, 2012
• DRC Action: Final Determination
Associate Planner, Robert Garcia, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report.
Applicant, Doug Ely, address on file, stated he had taken the comments provided at the
preliminary review to heart. They had taken everything into consideration and Committee
Member McCormack had provided suggestions on chains and roof drains and Committee
Member Fox had input on a holistic approach. He further developed the design with more
natural elements. He reviewed the changes that were incorporated and reviewed the proposal
with the Committee Members. He pointed out the changes on the plans before them. He
presented some 3 dimensional views of the plan. He pointed out where additional landscape
treatment would be placed. He stated the existing roofing would not be concealed, but rather
there would be a blend of roofs. The Committee Members reviewed the plans and changes with
the applicant. The roof drainage was reviewed and there would be a chain that tied into a
scupper. On the parking lot side of the project they created window frame trellises with brackets
set out from the wall with a bit of room for pots and plants that would grow up into those
window frame trellises and he had integrated the design elements around the entire building.
Public Comment
None.
Chair Woollett stated it was a very sophisticated response and sophisticated enough that people
would miss it. It was subtle, honest and meritorious. It could be submitted for a design award
and it was an outstanding proposal. He opened the item to the Committee for discussion.
Committee Member Fox stated she would take the risk in making a motion.
Committee Member Wheeler stated on the area where the shed roofs extended past the parapets
he suggested to allow the roof to flow around those a bit.
Chair Woollett stated that had been done in some of the areas.
Mr. Ely pointed out where that had been done.
Committee Member Wheeler asked if the trees had been incorporated in the landscape plan.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for April 18, 2012
Page 19 of 30
Mr. Ely stated he had colored the landscape plan and had added some trees.
Mr. Garcia stated there was a tree requirement that would need to be met.
Committee Member McCormack stated there was an area that was noted as landscape area, but it
pointed off site.
Mr. Ely stated those were previously approved plans.
Committee Member Fox stated that appeared to be a landscaped area between the fences.
Mr. Garcia stated that was the original submittal that was approved with the trees along the
perimeter and that plan was still applicable.
Mr. Ely stated there would be two additional trees added.
Committee Member Imboden stated there was a 10' setback shown and he asked for
clarification.
Mr. Garcia stated that was noted to show that the 10' setback requirement had been met.
Committee Member Imboden stated he would not want to loose any trees based on the setback
requirement.
Mr. Garcia stated that would not be the case.
Committee Member McCormack asked what the chains would end in?
Mr. Ely stated on the parking lot side that would be pots with some sort of drainage. On the
other side there would be some type of crushed rock with overflow to the planting areas.
Verbatim text.
Committee Member Fox made a motion to approve DRC No. 4528 -11, Lotus Wellness Center,
based on the findings of the Staff Report and with the conditions listed in the Staff Report.
Committee Member Imboden stated he appreciated the applicant and the designer and he
believed it was a situation where the process had made for a better project and it required both
sides of the table to have made that happen. It was a very nice project.
SECOND: Tim McCormack
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
Meeting Minutes for April 18, 2012
Page 20 of 30
New Agenda Items:
(4) DRC No. 4616 -12 — MICHA RESIDENCE
• A proposal to construct a detached 628 sq. ft. accessory unit, relocate a one -car garage,
and provide two open parking spaces on a site with a contributing 1926 Provincial
Residence and garage. Project includes a Variance to exceed 50% lot coverage over the
existing residence and a request for relief from the construction of two enclosed parking
spaces.
• 545 E. Jefferson Avenue, Old Towne Historic District
• Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, 714 - 744 -7224, dryan(a cityoforang_e.org
• DRC Action: Preliminary Review
Historic Preservation Planner, Dan Ryan, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff
Report.
Applicant, Doug Ely, address on file, stated he could go through all the issues subject by subject.
The property owners bought the property with an existing unit behind the garage and they
received a letter from Code Enforcement that the unit was not permitted; they were happy with
the way the unit existed. He presented photos of the unit. The challenge was to respect the
historic nature of the primary residence and the garage and they had looked at several different
site arrangements. They had met with Mr. Frankel and with City Staff to look at alternatives,
and they found that the best way to preserve the existing characteristics of the house and garage
would be to stay away from them. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards stated goals should
be met by not touching the existing property; and if that was not possible to touch it minimally
and to be compatible with the existing characteristics. All the alternatives that they explored
required moving the garage. He presented photos of the garage. He wanted to leave the garage
as close to the street at they could and in one scenario the garage would be shifted 20' to allow
for cars to be parked and space that would be attributable to the primary residence. He initially
looked at requesting 2 variances, one being the 50% rule, and what was legal by the current
residence was to add additional square footage to the primary residence, however, that was
something the property owners had not wanted to do. From a design standpoint the changes he
proposed were all respective of the primary residence. The roof of the house had a very steep
roof pitch. There were comments in the Standards regarding additions and what was
recommended was in designing an addition to clearly have what was existing and what was new
be identifiable. He proposed to separate the addition and to design the unit with a lower plate
height with slab on grade, and he had chosen not to replicate the high pitch roof. He proposed an
8 and 12 pitch roof. The design he proposed was representative of the time, and a present day
home was designed around a kitchen and a great room and he had incorporated that concept into
his design. The garage would take prominence on the site with the addition being subservient to
that. He presented a site plan that everyone had seemed to be in favor of. There was also an
existing tree on the property and the challenge was with the garage arrangement and taking steps
to preserve the tree. He presented some photos and explained the placement of the different
components on the site.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for April 18, 2012
Page 21 of 30
Mr. Ely also stated the addition would be 2 bedrooms with 1 bath and 628 square feet, he pointed
out the placement of the tree and the other details of the addition. There were windows that were
around the corner and closer to the corner and Mr. Ryan had pointed out that the windows were
not an Old Towne feature, but the application was a current day application. The trim around the
window was identical to the existing residence. The Staff Report stated Mr. Ryan had not know
what type of design to call the proposal and that was what he was trying to achieve, he had not
wanted it to look like a Craftsman or a Bungalow. The drawings had not shown the rafter tails
and he was proposing exposed rafter tails.
Applicant, John Micha, address on file, stated he had bought the property when his son was a
student at Chapman and there was the second little studio in the back and it had been purchased
through the Ricci Group and everything was fine and then they received the notice from the City.
It was disappointing as there was a functional unit there. They would tear it down if they needed
to and would design a cottage that would fit in.
Applicant, Vicki Micha, stated the house was a doll house and she wanted to still have the doll
house. The other thing that concerned her was moving it back and having more concrete. She
wanted to keep the current feel of the property.
Public Comment
Jeff Frankel, address on file, representing the OTPA, stated as was mentioned, he had
appreciated that Mr. Ely had brought them on early on to review the project. It was a complex
project as far as the Staff Report was concerned and a lot of recommendations included in that.
What was driving the project was the garage and the tree; it if was up to them the garage should
not be moved as it changed the relationship of the buildings on site. The OTPA would want the
garage to move at the minimum and although he loved Avocado trees, if he had to choose
between the garage and tree he would loose the tree. If the building could not be accommodated
on the lot the size of the unit might need to be reduced. He had not agreed with the comment in
the Staff Report that stated most garages were at the rear of properties in Old Towne and moving
the garage to the rear would be inappropriate. The foundation should be a raised foundation and
the accessory structure should reference the main building, but not mimic it. The roof pitch
would be hard to replicate. All materials should be in kind materials. He had met with Mr. Ely
and with the City and it was an ongoing project.
Chair Woollett opened the item to the Committee for discussion. He asked Committee Member
McCormack what the cost would be to replace an Avocado tree that was bearing fruit?
Committee Member McCormack stated he believed that could not be done. Another tree would
need to be moved and he had not seen an Avocado tree in a 36" box. He had seen a tree in a 24"
box and getting a big huge tree in a box would require a lot to get the right one in aerated soil.
Chair Woollett stated he wanted some more information on the existing non - permitted unit.
There were no retroactive requirements on the design.
Mr. Ryan stated he had to duck somewhere inside the unit. If an accessory structure had been
approved in the past there would have needed to be parking for the unit. Sometimes people
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for April 18, 2012
Page 22 of 30
constructed a rumpus room next to the garage and then eventually a bathroom and kitchen would
get added, and those units were easier to change into an accessory unit.
Chair Woollett stated the parking could be met without building a new unit and in order to
provide a new parking space the garage would need to be moved and in moving the garage the
existing unit would need to be moved and he was trying to understand what was wrong with the
existing unit that was driving them to tear down the existing unit and build new?
Mr. Ryan stated the unit was substandard due to the construction height and minimum floor area.
Mr. Micah stated it was a 1960's building, but all the plumbing and electrical had been upgraded.
Committee Member Imboden stated it was a non - permitted second unit and it needed to be
brought up to code to be legal.
Mr. Ryan stated the parking needed to be upgraded and there was no place for that with the
current placement of the buildings. He and Mr. Ely spoke about moving the building back 3'
which would allow for open space on the site.
Committee Member Fox asked what the required separation was for buildings on the site, when
they were not attached?
Mr. Ryan stated 10' in front of the entrance door and they were asking for 6' eave to eave and
the code was 6' building to building.
Committee Member Wheeler stated if the owners were happy with the existing 300 square foot
structure why was the proposed new unit so much bigger?
Ms. Micah stated they were investing a lot of money and she would not want to move her son
into a little thing and at that point they wanted something nicer.
Mr. Ely stated they had looked at a 450 square foot addition, but to have the bedrooms and
layout as proposed he could not get to that.
Committee Member Wheeler asked if he had looked into a 1 ' / 2 story using the attic space for a
2nd bedroom?
Mr. Ely stated to keep away from having a higher roof; they had not wanted to compete with the
home's roof form. They had used a different roof pitch and the slab on grade to keep the plate
height low.
Chair Woollett stated it would be helpful to discuss the reasons for moving the garage all the
way to the back of the property.
Committee Member Fox stated she would suggest keeping it closer to its existing location and
that 20' was the maximum amount that should be allowed to move it back. The garage
movement was fine as proposed.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for April 18, 2012
Page 23 of 30
Committee Member Wheeler stated he agreed and suggested to move it back as little as possible.
Committee Members McCormack and Imboden stated they agreed with those comments.
Mr. Ryan stated at one point he felt moving it back would allow for more open space.
Mr. Ely stated he thought one of the dimensions of open space was 10', but not both length and
width had to be met at 10'. He asked Mr. Ryan to review the open space requirements?
Committee Member Wheeler stated they could move the parking space back further without
moving the garage and the design could be a more contemporary design with a low sloped roof,
slab on grade and treat the addition as a more modern addition. Slab on grade for that approach
would be appropriate; but if the design would be incorporating matching elements to the existing
residents, a similar roof pitch and same siding then to him it should feel compatible with the way
it was done in the past with a raised floor especially with a porch.
Committee Member Imboden stated he had not had a problem with the building being slab on
grade; it was a contemporary building that stood next to another building that was slab on grade
and would not create a negative impact on the historic resource that existing on the site. He
agreed that placing it on grade would be a better response if the overall design was treated
differently.
Committee Member McCormack stated he took it from the perspective of what would he do if it
was his addition. It was next to another building that was slab on grade, but that building was a
garage and it had to be slab on grade. He would not do a slab on grade. He would dig down
deeper and have the crawl space be deeper.
Committee Member Imboden stated the net result would be the same. With a raised foundation
that was so close to a slab elevation he would question why they would want to do that, they
were not gaining anything.
Committee Member Wheeler stated the most problematic issue was the complexity of the
proposal, with all the gables and it seemed so busy for an accessory unit. He felt the main house
should be the star and it was a relatively simple form which was part of the beauty of it.
Committee Member Fox stated it upstaged the main property and she felt that slab on grade was
fine and it would stay subordinate to the main structure by doing that. The roof forms
completely went against that by creating an incredibly complex roof system on the addition and
there was a line of sight that would have the addition be visible from the street. She thought the
massing that was initially proposed was much better; it was a balance of space and subordinate to
the main house. She felt the layout was unusual and if the living space was more forward the
other criteria might be met. She agreed with having a front door closer to the front to help
emphasize the unit as an accessory structure.
Mr. Ely stated he had started with the other design and the roof pitch was too tall and they had
attempted to narrow it, also the living space was closer to the tree.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for April 18, 2012
Page 24 of 30
Committee Member Fox suggested turning the gable on the roof the other way.
Committee Member Wheeler presented a photo and suggested they use the form that had already
been there for 60 years and to keep a low sloped single pitch roof.
Mr. Ely stated he had not considered that, he was looking at a more current day approach and
that had not been done recently in Old Towne.
Chair Woollett stated one of the things they found was applicants often presented proposals with
preconceptions of what the DRC would accept and what they would not accept. He believed Mr.
Ely had a little more freedom in the approach and the main building was a one of a kind of
building in the City and it would allow for a lot more freedom in the design for the accessory
unit.
Committee Member Fox stated she would advocate for a roof that hit the mark of the roof that
was in the front if the gable went across and way behind the garage. She reviewed the plans with
the applicant.
Mr. Ely stated in reviewing the Staff Report there was a different direction and he just wanted to
know what way he should interpret the Old Towne design standards and the historic standards,
there was room for doing something more contemporary and he was not certain how far to push
the envelope. He asked why the entrance needed to be at the front?
Committee Member Wheeler stated he personally had not felt it needed to be there and it could
be anywhere. As a floor plan issue, and if the focus was the tree, he would move the living
spaces and get rid of wasted hall space.
Committee Member Imboden stated it was an important project, with the changes that were
taking place in zoning in Old Towne, the DRC would be charged more and more with
determining how large accessory units could be and still remain secondary to historic resources.
They were dealing with many of those issues in the proposed project and he agreed whole
heartedly that the alternate design would net them a better project as the initial one presented was
far too complex. He was not convinced that one plan over another would preserve the Avocado
tree and the building would be approximately 3' from the tree trunk. He was okay with the
garage moving just slightly, but the issue of the garage and the tree was forcing the design to
create problems. He had previously seen so many projects come through the City where a tree
had driven a project and before the project was complete the tree would be gone and he wanted
to avoid seeing that and he would condition that a tree remain or if it was removed that a new
tree be replaced, as he had not wanted applicant's to use a tree to drive a design component. He
was not certain the tree could be preserved. He suggested that they explore the design and the
desire to keep or not keep the tree.
Ms. Micha stated she loved the tree and the idea of looking out at a tree and not just a patch of
dirt.
Committee Member Imboden stated if the building was too close to the tree they would not be
looking out at a tree, but at the trunk of the tree.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for April 18, 2012
Page 25 of 30
Committee Member McCormack stated, pointing to the tree's drip line on the plans, the structure
should not be there. He asked if the structure could be smaller?
Mr. Ely stated it led to a more complex design.
Committee Member Imboden stated what he was hearing was that the Committee Members were
less concerned with the building height and with the house having so much detail and there were
options. The ordinance of the front door facing the street was created for a main house that faced
the street; and was it something that they wanted to consider as a reasonable requirement for an
accessory unit? He also questioned the need for a front porch on the new unit. If a porch got
under a certain size it would become unusable as a porch and why would they want to add more
bulk and mass with a porch that would not function as a porch and would it just become a token
obligation.
Committee Member Fox stated she was not certain that would drive more of the mass.
Mr. Ely reviewed the drawings and the details of the porch area.
Committee Member Imboden stated he would not want to encourage a porch just for the sake of
having one if it was not a useable porch. If sitting in a chair on that porch and the edge of the
porch was at your toes it would be as if you were sitting on the sidewalk. The existing house had
a covered entry.
Committee Member Fox stated it was a covered entry.
Ms. Micah stated if they got rid of the porch, she had not wanted that to create problems if that
was something they needed to have.
Mr. Micah stated one of the things about Orange was that every building was different with
different shapes.
The Committee Members discussed the view from the street.
Committee Member Fox stated the Secretary of the Interior's Standards made reference to
additions not competing with the historic structure, regardless of whether it was visible from the
street. To not upstage the house would be important.
Chair Woollett suggested Mr. Ely take what he had and simplify the project and especially the
roof.
Mr. Ely stated he had not felt as strongly in that if the complexity was not visible then it would
not be an issue. It was a current day structure and it could not be perceived. When inside the
unit the openness would be felt. The roof design would integrate the new structure on the site.
Committee Member Imboden stated the reason for review was to gain feedback from the DRC
and the consensus was that the proposal was too complex. Dormers could be used.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for April 18, 2012
Page 26 of 30
Committee Member Fox stated she had no problem with the dormer in the back that faced the
tree. Dormers were not a blanket no. There were 4 ridges on the smallest mass on the project. It
was an aesthetic balance issue.
Mr. Ely stated the unit was a representation of what was occurring inside.
Mr. Ryan stated in building something that was too complex it would take away from the
existing unit and one of the problems he had initially had. The decision needed to be made to
have the unit be more similar with the same architecture of the front unit or to deviate with
another concept.
Committee Member Wheeler stated he was a bit nervous about doing things "ut of sight" as there
were neighbors that would see it. It needed to be complementary.
Committee Member Fox stated rotating the ridge 90 degrees would also give license to giving
the unit a different roof pitch.
Ms. Micah asked what if they simplified the design with a more contemporary roof?
Committee Member Wheeler stated that would be fine and to even consider using the forms from
the existing non - conforming shed.
Chair Woollett stated he believed they had provided sufficient input to the applicant.
Mr. Ely asked if the front porch was required?
Committee Member Imboden read from the guidelines: Each main building must have a porch
or entry treatment with a shaped roof form in materials and style typical of the style and period
of the building.
Chair Woollett stated that would not apply for the accessory structure.
The item was presented for preliminary review and a motion was not needed.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for April 18, 2012
Page 27 of 30
(5) DRC No. 4620 -12 — JOHNSON RESIDENCE
• A proposal to construct a new rear porch roof on a 1912 Victorian residence.
• 714 E. Maple Avenue, Old Towne Historic District
• Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, 714 - 744 -7224, dryan(&cityoforange.org
• DRC Action: Final Determination
Historic Preservation Planner, Dan Ryan, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff
Report.
Applicant, Glory Johnson, address on file, stated she would be using wood and she had gone to
great lengths to remove anything artificial.
Public Comment
Jeff Frankel, address on file, representing the OTPA, stated they were okay with the project and
the OTPA supported the project. The rear porch was typical of the style for that era.
Chair Woollett opened the item to the Committee for discussion.
Committee Member Wheeler stated the new porch was shown with a gable end and it was an
unfortunate situation with the suggestion of an open pediment, but it was such a low slope and a
totally different detail. He suggested to have that be a hip roof to mimic the hip of the front
porch.
The Committee Members reviewed the proposed plans.
Committee Member Wheeler asked what the material for the porch ceiling would be?
Ms. Johnson stated it was wood.
Committee Member Wheeler suggested a flat ceiling to match the ceiling of the front porch. A
nice bead board could be used.
Verbatim text:
Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve DRC No. 4620 -12, Johnson Residence,
in accordance with the conditions in the Staff Report and in accordance to the findings in the
Staff Report, and with the additional condition:
• that the new rear porch roof be a hip form rather than the gable or shed form shown.
And with the recommendation:
• that the new porch ceiling be a flat ceiling with bead board or similar material.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for April 18, 2012
Page 28 of 30
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
Meeting Minutes for April 18, 2012
Page 29 of 30
(5) DRC No. 4623 -12- ORANGE SENIOR CENTER
• A proposal to convert a 278 sq. ft. patio into a rummage /storage room
• 170 S. Olive Street, Old Towne Historic District
• Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, 714- 744 -7224, dryan(u,ci oforange.org
• DRC Action: Final Determination
This Item was heard as the first item on the Agenda.
Committee Member Wheeler recused himself from the project's presentation as he was the
architect on the project.
Historic Preservation Planner, Dan Ryan, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff
Report.
Community Services Director, Marie Knight, address on file, representing the City of Orange,
stated it was a very straight forward project. The expansion would assist with increasing
fundraising.
Public Comment
None.
Chair Woollett opened the item to the Committee for discussion.
Committee Member Fox stated it was an appropriate project and it matched the existing building.
Committee Member McCormack stated on the existing south elevation the drainage was shown
as existing, but on the proposed drawings the drainage area was proposed new.
Ms. Knight stated it was being relocated.
Verbatim text:
Committee Member McCormack made a motion to approve DRC No. 4623 -12, Orange Senior
Center, patio conversion with the findings and recommendations from Staff.
SECOND: Carol Fox
AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Joe Woollett
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
RECUSED: Craig Wheeler
MOTION CARRIED.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for April 18, 2012
Page 30 of 30
ADJOURNMENT:
Committee Member McCormack made a motion to adjourn to the next regular scheduled Design
Review Committee meeting on May 2, 2012.
SECOND: Craig Wheeler
AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED.
Meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.