2016-05-04 DRC Final Minutes CITY OF ORANGE
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
MINUTES - FINAL
May 4, 2016
Committee Members Present: Carol Fox - Chair
Craig Wheeler — Vice Chair
Robert Imboden
Tim McCormack
Anne McDermott
Staff in Attendance: Robert Garcia, Senior Planner
Marissa Moshier, Associate Planner- Historic Preservation
Judy Eguez, Contract Planner
Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner
Sharon Penttila, Recording Secretary
Administrative Session — 5:00
Chair Fox opened the Administrative Session at 5:07 p.m.
Mr. Garcia explained a correction on Item #7, DRC 4831 -15 Olson Co., in which it was actually
before the Committee as a recommendation to the Planning Commission and not a preliminary
review as shown on the agenda.
Chair Fox inquired if there was any Policy or Procedural information. Robert Garcia, Senior
Planner, indicated there was no Policy or Procedural information.
Committee Members reviewed the Design Review Committee minutes for April 14, 2016 and April
20, 2016.
Committee Member Imboden made a motion to close the Administrative Session of the Design
Review Committee meeting.
SECOND: Craig Wheeler
AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Anne McDermott, and Craig Wheeler
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED.
Administrative Session adjourned at 5:34 p.m.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for May 4, 2016
Page 2 of 13
Regular Session — 5:34 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
All Committee Members were present.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:
Opportunity for members of the public to address the Design Review Committee on matters not
listed on the Agenda.
There were no speakers.
CONSENT ITEMS:
(1) APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 14, 2016 and April 20, 2016
Vice Chair Wheeler made a motion to approve the minutes from the Design Review Committee
meetings of April 14, 2016 and April 20, 2016 as emended during the discussion at the
Administrative Session.
SECOND: Anne McDermott
AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Anne McDermott, and Craig Wheeler
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for May 4, 2016
Page 3 of 13
AGENDA ITEMS
Continued Items:
(2) DRC No. 4785 -15 Outlets at Orange
• Final review of the hardscape materials board.
• 20 City Boulevard
• Staff Contact: Robert Garcia, (714) 744 -7231, rgarcia @cityoforange.org
• DRC Action: Final Determination
Robert Garcia, Senior Planner, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report.
The applicants who were present for this project were Soo Wai -Kin, Andrew Davies, and Jocelyn
Gubler.
Ms. Gubler gave a brief overview of the new proposed materials and colors.
Public Comments:
Chair Fox opened the item to the Public for comments. There were no speakers.
Chair Fox opened the item to the Committee for discussion.
The DRC commented on the following:
• Questioned the fire lane access on the plaza. Mr. Davies said there would be no fire truck
access in that location.
• Asked if there was a sample board for the exterior building colors and Mr. Davies said no.
The exterior building color had been approved previously.
• Noted that synthetic turf was not called out on the plans. Mr. Wai -Kin indicated the various
pockets the synthetic turf would be located, which were shown in the hatched areas.
Committee Member McCormack made a motion to approve DRC No. 4785 -15, Outlets at Orange,
based on the findings and conditions listed in the Staff Report:
SECOND: Craig Wheeler
AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Anne McDermott, and Craig Wheeler
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for May 4, 2016
Page 4 of 13
(3) DRC No. 4669 -13 Eidenmuller Medical Office Building
• A proposal to revise the design of a previously approved railing on a new exterior
stair /elevator tower on a contributing building in the Old Towne Historic District. The project
was continued by the DRC on April 4, 2016.
• 615 E. Chapman Avenue, Old Towne Historic District
• Staff Contact: Marissa Moshier, (714) 744 -7243, mmoshier @cityoforange.org
• DRC Action: Final Determination
Marissa Moshier, Associate Planner- Historic Preservation, presented a project overview consistent
with the Staff Report.
The applicants who were present for this project were Gerald R. Eidenmuller and Doug Ely.
Public Comments:
Chair Fox opened the item to the Public for comments. There were no speakers.
Chair Fox opened the item to the Committee for discussion.
The DRC commented on the following:
• Preferred the details shown on Sheets 6a and 7a.
• Did not want the wood stops on both sides of the posts to be flush with the face of the posts.
• Suggested putting smaller wood stops on either side of the glass so it would be easy to
replace the glass.
• Questioned why there was not a slope on the bottom rail to allow water runoff.
Committee Member Imboden made a motion to approve DRC No. 4669 -13, Eidenmuller Medical
Office Building, based on the findings and conditions listed in the Staff Report with the additional
conditions:
1. The alternate design shown on Sheets 6a and 7a shall be used with the difference that the
glass shall be affixed at the post with a wood stop like material that is slightly inset from the
face of the post.
2. The bottom rail shall be tapered to slope outward to shed water away from the glass panel.
SECOND: Tim McCormack
AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Anne McDermott, and Craig Wheeler
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for May 4, 2016
Page 5 of 13
New Agenda Items:
4) DRC No. DRC 4851 -16 Tustin Shopping Center
• The applicant proposes to modify the exterior facade of the Tustin Shopping Center, add
1,241 square foot storage area to the rear of the Payday Loans tenant space.
• 215 -221 S Tustin Street
• Staff Contact: Judy Eguez, (714) 744 -7239, jeguez @cityoforange.org
• DRC Action: Final Determination
Judy Eguez, Contract Planner, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report.
The applicants who were present for this project were Parto Famouri and Doug Ely. Mr. Ely
explained the features on future tenant spaces and that they chose concrete columns to mimic the
columns like those on the adjacent property.
Public Comments:
Chair Fox opened the item to the Public for comments. There were no speakers.
Chair Fox opened the item to the Committee for discussion.
The DRC commented on the following:
• Thought the column placement was logical.
• Problem with the design and capitals of the columns. Mr. Ely indicated they were looking
for a unique look and to be somewhat different from the shopping center to the south.
• Suggested possible changes by making the bases and capitals round instead of square;
making them both the same thickness and thinner; and lowering the plinth height to match
the capital or keep the plinth height but have a thin, round capital.
• Noted the design was an overlap of modern and traditional.
• Noted the metal capital was unique and suggested making it concrete.
• Did not support making the bases and capitals round because it would make them more
pronounced.
• Preferred the capitals be painted the same color as the columns.
Vice Chair Wheeler made a motion to approve DRC No. 4851 -16, Tustin Shopping Center, based on
the findings and conditions listed in the Staff Report with the additional condition:
1. The metal capital facing shall not be used and it shall match the materials of the stucco
building and be painted the same color as the column.
SECOND: Robert Imboden
AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Anne McDermott, and Craig Wheeler
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for May 4, 2016
Page 6 of 13
(5) DRC No. 4758 -14 Wimbleton Court
• Preliminary review for a 10 lot subdivision.
• 6231 E. Wimbleton Court
• Staff Contact: Robert Garcia, (714) 744 -7231, rgarcia @cityoforange.org
• DRC Action: Preliminary Review
Robert Garcia, Senior Planner, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report.
The applicants who were present for this project were Yasir Kahf and Haitham A. Hafeez. Mr. Kahf
explained the challenges of developing the property.
Public Comments:
Chair Fox opened the item to the Public for comments. There were no speakers.
Chair Fox opened the item to the Committee for discussion.
The DRC commented on the following:
• Noted substantial errors in the coordination between the floor plans and the elevations; there
were problems with all the projects where the elevations did not reflect what the roof plan
indicated especially where there were angles on the plans; the windows were not reflected in
the floor plan shown and the elements shown on the facade were not reflected in the floor
plan such as columns.
• Suggested the applicant hire a consultant that was familiar with the proposed architectural
style because there was not a connection between the floor plans and architectural styles.
Chair Fox did not want to correct all the problems on the houses but just have a general discussion
about design direction. She wanted to talk about the site planning, architecture, and landscape
approach on a general level:
Committee Member McDermott comments:
• From a visual design standpoint it was lacking in terms of scale, massing, proportion and
logical hierarchy.
• Concerned on Lot 3, Sheet 1, with the window on the left elevation being so close to the
edge; the chimney floating over the window; the elevations below having very squat window
proportions; and window proportions that did not have anything to do with the location, and
there was no relationship to each other.
• Sheet 2: concerned with the entry way to the garage doors, and on the south elevation
concerned with the lack of any shade or any overhangs.
• Sheet 3: could not figure out the scale on the front elevation on Lot 6— family room door was
much taller than the garage door; the trim pieces were so close to the windows; confused
with the front door placement; would like to see a hierarchy of the doors and the entry and
the head heights should have a relationship to each other; the fenestration did not have any
relationship with the forms with gable ends and windows were randomly placed; the columns
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for May 4, 2016
Page 7 of 13
were out of proportion; and the living room windows should have a relationship to each
other.
• Sheet 4: elevation extremely ornate and so many special windows that none of them are
special and would like to see it simplified; questioned the arched windows and the space
above the windows on the lower elevation.
• Sheet 5: not enough space around the windows and wanted to see more design integrity with
the window sizes and forms.
• Suggested developing elevations with a relationship to interior room functions.
Summary: building elements out of proportion, choose appropriate windows that work with function
as well as form outside; and determine the hierarchy of the windows in which some are more
important than others and choose which ones should be important and highlight them; and concern
with proportions.
Committee Member Imboden comments:
• Not understanding the aesthetics and the idea behind them. Decisions were quite arbitrary,
attempting to use a historicized style but not using the elements in a traditional historic way;
serious issues with location, proportion, and types of windows.
• Noted on Lot 6 to the left side of front elevation there was a fair amount of glazing with an
arch over it but it was not the entry; recesses were blind arcades and the entry was pushed
around the corner; columns had no tops on them; no mastery over style; adjacency issues
with architectural elements — too close to the edge and one another, not enough room for
decorative elements; roof forms were overlapping and it was not an internally consistent set
of ideas.
• Looked like lots had been divided simply by math without regard to aesthetics as well as the
house form.
• Wanted to know if the plant material worked for the various areas and needed a better
understanding of the geometry of the fences and if they worked.
• Lots did not reflect a rational approach to subdividing the property into creating attractive
usable lots.
• Needed a consistent set of ideas.
• It appeared the houses were going to be at the minimum front yard setback all the time and
that might not be the right approach and might end up with an odd product.
• Questioned the angled wall on the clubhouse.
Vice Chair Wheeler comments:
• Noted if building something in a traditional style the forms should look appropriate for what
would have been used traditionally such stone and mudbrick.
• Noted the smear of different parts with different window sizes and heights and no reason for
all the jumble.
• Should take into consideration the design not just on the front elevation but the sides as well.
• Recommended finding someone familiar with the architectural style they are interested in
and someone who understands roof geometry.
• Better to make less house and more nice outdoor usable space.
Committee Member McCormack
• Saw a lot of retaining walls but did not understand how that was working.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for May 4, 2016
Page 8 of 13
• Not concerned with the plant selection but wanted it go with the architecture.
• Lacking in the big picture - was it sloped or graded with retaining walls, not sure what the
landscape palette, plane and the shadow patterns were.
• Problems with the roof details and suggested if using flat roofs to use parapets.
• Needed to understand the columns, pilasters against the wall, and paint on the wall.
• Noted a 33' elevation between pads and wanted the applicant to come back with a cross
section and a grading plan.
Chair Fox comments:
• Geometry of the roofs was unresolved.
• Noted a Spanish style would be beautiful with the slope. A Moorish/Spanish style
architecture, executed properly, could be a great product for the lot.
• Shape of the house has been dictated by the setbacks and they should think beyond that.
• Serious concern with the slope and how it related to the outdoor and indoor spaces.
• Unusual lots and the walls were not labeled as to heights.
• Noted the roof plan indicated that the eaves were going to be sloped but there were no sloped
eaves on the plans.
• Needed someone competent to figure out the angles on the roofs.
• Asked if there was a reason so many angles had to be used.
• Not following the path of least resistance when doing a grading plan and lot layout. It should
work with the slope and questioned if there were too many lots on the property.
• Suggested larger lots with less angles in them.
For Preliminary Review — no action required.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for May 4, 2016
Page 9 of 13
(6) DRC No. 4823 -15 Encore Residences Hewes
• Preliminary review for 12 senior apartment units.
• 1360 S. Hewes Street
• Staff Contact: Chad Ortlieb, (714) 744 -7237, cortlieb @cityoforange.org
• DRC Action: Preliminary Review
Chair Fox inquired about getting reduced sized plans for Committee review prior to the meeting and
providing a large scale plan for review at the meeting.
Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. He
discussed the features being proposed for Buildings A, B, and C, the site layout, and the landscape
plan. He explained the issues being addressed by staff regarding architectural improvements which
included design enhancement suggestions and architectural details.
The applicants who were present for this project were Jeff Moore, Roger Hobbs, and Jim Langston.
Mr. Hobbs explained why they were focused on senior housing, and the number of buildings they
have developed in the City of Orange and how they fit into the neighborhoods.
Public Comments:
Chair Fox opened the item to the Public for comments. There were no speakers.
Chair Fox opened the item to the Committee for discussion.
The DRC commented on the following:
• Noted the project was making the most use of the property and it was a good solution.
• Noted the detailing on the north elevation with the stair element would be better if treated
like a vertical element by making the openings a little smaller and not as articulated.
• Suggested using a small trellis element over the garages.
• Suggested looking at the long facades and look for ways to break them up with molding or a
trellis.
• Suggested using ceramic tile, a wall fountain, wrought iron grill, or a planter in the portico
facing Hewes.
• Suggested softening the square columns and thought smooth walls would work nicely.
• Wanted to see about getting rid of the window on the west overlooking the one -story house
or replace it with a high window.
• Discussed the use of the double hung windows versus the sliders.
• Wanted the blind arches reconsidered because it was a lot of repetition and suggested having
an opening with closed shutters on some of them or have tiles in them to break up the
facades.
• Noted some of the lower level columns did not have much of a relationship with what was
going on above them and suggested extending them in the center of the building.
• Noted some bottom floor to top floor disconnect such as on the east elevation and wanted
some organization for the whole building top to bottom.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for May 4, 2016
Page 10 of 13
• The proportions on the north elevation seemed squat and needed some lift.
• Not comfortable with the window under the pop -out in the fitness area.
• Wanted shutters to be considered.
• Wanted to see the fence pulled back 1' to 18" to give some landscape back to the streetscape.
Mr. Moore said because of the fire laddering access along Hewes they have eliminated the
42" high fence from the plan.
• Suggested changing the paving material to designate a walkway. Mr. Moore explained how
the water filtration unit restricts the path of travel.
• Wanted to see a shade, sun, and transitional plant palette at the next meeting.
• Did not prefer the loquat tree and suggested something that would get bigger and cast a
shadow.
• Suggested using landscape vertical elements on the vertical elements on the front with
columnar type plants.
• Wanted to see more shade plant material along the fire access driveway because it was stark.
• Wanted to encourage considering a stamp of some kind on the concrete or a paver on the
entrance.
• Agreed with Mr. Ortlieb's suggestion with the round down spouts and ogee rain gutters.
• Requested smaller plans for the review process.
• Congratulated the applicants on the design of the project.
For Preliminary Review — no action required.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for May 4, 2016
Page 11 of 13
(7) DRC No. 4831 -15 Olson Co.
• Preliminary review for a 37 unit one -story condominium proposal in a one story overlay
district.
• Vacant lot south side of Washington and Hamlin
• Staff Contact: Robert Garcia, (714) 744 -7231, rgarcia @cityoforange.org
• DRC Action: Preliminary Review
Based on the error on the agenda which stated it was a preliminary review, Chair Fox explained they
would still be reviewing the project tonight but would continue it to a special meeting on May 11,
2016 at 7:00 p.m. in order for the pubic to come and comment on the aesthetics of the project. There
would not be a recommendation to the Planning Commission tonight.
Robert Garcia, Senior Planner, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report.
The applicants who were present for this project were Doris Nguyen, Todd Olson, Michael Boyd,
and Peter Durate.
Ms. Nguyen gave a brief history of the Olson Company and their Champion Program. She
explained how they had been before the DRC two years ago with a proposal of a 58 unit, two -story
project and the current proposal was for 37 single -story units and now completely complies with the
zoning. She discussed the meetings they have held with the surrounding community for the past 2
years.
Public Comments:
Chair Fox opened the item to the Public for comments:
Daniel Geaman, address on file, stated that the Olson Co. had done a nice job with this project, it
was appropriate for the neighborhood, and would be simple for the HOA to maintain.
Kim Johnson, address on file, thanked the DRC for continuing the item to next week. She indicated
the Olson Co. had reached out and worked with the community. She had been concerned with the
lighting issue on her property but had been told the lighting situation would not be a problem for her.
Also she was glad the lot behind her would be graded down to the same level as her home.
Chair Fox asked Ms. Johnson to tell the neighbors that preliminary reviews were a good time to
receive feedback on projects prior to the final review.
Vivian Maxwell, address on file, wanted to thank the Olson Co. because they have worked hard to
make everyone happy.
Chair Fox opened the item to the Committee for discussion.
The DRC commented on the following:
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for May 4, 2016
Page 12 of 13
• Concerned with the front elevation on Page A1.2 with all the prominent garage doors and the
dark colors making them even more prominent. Suggested minimizing the garage doors with
lighter colors.
• Questioned what was on the left side of the right elevation. Mr. Boyd said it was where the
utility meter cabinets would go.
• Questioned what the eave overhang size was. Mr. Boyd said it was 12 ". Suggested making
the eaves longer to match the spanish style.
• Chair Fox, Vice Chair Wheeler, and Committee Member Imboden indicated they had
previously met with the Olson Co.
• Had previously noted the roof plans were very complicated and suggested cleaning them up
but now the ridge looked continuous and wanted it improved.
• Suggested having 8' garage doors instead of the 16' in various locations, but there was
concern for the 8' wide garages and people running into them.
• Asked who the target market was for these homes and Ms. Nguyen said it was likely those
who were downsizing their homes.
• Questioned the utility doors and the fact they are always on the street side of the building.
Wanted some thought given to them since they are so visible.
• Pleased with the layout, the colors were nice and sophisticated, but wanted the roofs, eaves,
and garage doors looked at again.
• Noted the landscape features were detailed very well.
• Wanted a more overhead landscape statement including larger trees and more of them.
• Wanted to see some analysis on the sun/shade plant palette especially in the north and east
zones.
• Concerned the trees would go in small spaces and suggested having some punch outs along
the sidewalk or make the sidewalk smaller to have space to plant larger trees.
• Concerned with the street tree being the Little Gem Magnolia because it would look odd and
small.
• Liked the landscape spaces and the bocce ball courts.
• Suggested using tree grates to accommodate larger trees.
Summary of the Committee's comments:
• Lighter colors on Scheme 3 on the garage doors
• Bigger eaves but not rakes
• 8' doors, if possible, on some garages
• Pay attention to the doors on the utility cabinet, consider a louver and a simple door trim
• Larger planting areas or at least a tree as large as possible
• Break up the long ridges and study it before the next meeting
Mr. Olson stated that next week they would be coming back with tree recommendations; talk to
Public Works about the sidewalks; look at the ridge and a way to break it up with new exhibits; have
new colors for the garage doors; bring photographs of louvered utility cabinets; and look at
simplifying the trim around the cabinets.
For Preliminary Review — no action required.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for May 4, 2016
Page 13 of 13
ADJOURNMENT:
Committee Member McCormack made a motion to adjourn to a special Design Review Committee
meeting on Wednesday, May 11, 2016 at 7:00 p.m.
SECOND: Craig Wheeler
AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Anne McDermott, and Craig Wheeler
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED.
Meeting adjourned at 9:12 p.m.