2016-08-17 DRC Final Minutes CITY OF ORANGE
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
MINUTES - FINAL
August 17, 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
Sharon Penttila, Recording Secretary
Administrative Session—5:00
Chair Fox opened the Administrative Session at 5:09 p.m.
Chair Fox inquired if there was any Policy or Procedural information. Mr. Garcia indicated there
was no Policy or Procedural information.
Committee Members reviewed the Design Review Committee minutes for July 20, 2016 and August
3, 2016.
Vice Chair Wheeler made a motion to close the Administrative Session of the Design Review
Committee meeting.
SECOND: Anne McDermott
AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Anne McDermott, and Craig Wheeler
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED.
Administrative Session adjourned at 5:19 p.m.
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for August ]7, 2016
Page 2 of 12
Regular Session—5:33 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: July 20, 2016 and August 3,2016
Committee Member McDermott made a motion to approve the minutes from the Design Review
Committee meeting of July 20, 2016, as emended during the discussion at the Administrative
Session.
SECOND: Robert Imboden
AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, and Anne McDermott
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Craig Wheeler
MOTION CARRIED.
Vice Chair Wheeler made a motion to approve the minutes from the Design Review Committee
meeting of August 3, 2016, as emended during the discussion at the Administrative Session.
SECOND: Anne McDermott
AYES: Carol Fox, Anne McDermott, and Craig Wheeler
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Robert Imboden and Tim McCormack
MOTION CARRIED.
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for August 17, 2016
Page 3 of 12
AGENDAITEMS
Continued Items:
(2) DRC No. 4758-14 Wimbleton Court
• The applicant proposes to subdivide one approximately 91,476 Square Foot(SF) lot into
eight numbered lots and two lettered lot for eight single-family houses and one common
recreation area.
• 6231 E. Wimbleton Court
• Staff Contact: Robert Garcia, (714) 744-7231
• 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 Haitham Hafeez, Mustafa Bdeiwi, John
Palisin and Yasir Kahf.
Mr. Hafeez said they were there to address any comments and concerns of the Design Review
Committee.
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.
• Had difficulty with understanding the letter of justification and there had been a number of
spelling errors and language issues.
• Wanted an explanation of an Islamic floor plan, mud house design, separate entrances, and
an understanding of the screens. Mr. Bdeiwi explained how each lot answered its own
footprint and the unique features of the designs.
• Asked if the plans had been designed by Revit.
• Thought these new plans were an improvement from the last submittal but there was still a
long way to go. Wanted to encourage the applicant to apply some rigor to get to a
consistently integrated idea.
• Asked when the item returns, that a smaller set of plans be provided.
• Noted it would be helpful to have facades of the homes to get a sense of placement and a
streetscape.
• Wanted a consistent set of ideas for each home.
• Noted inconsistencies of roof pitches, window and door spacing, arches, roof changes, and
plate heights.
• Thought the drawings were hard to understand and needed more visual information such as
photographs.
• Wanted to see the bedroom windows treated slightly differently because egress windows, the
screens would need to be removable.
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for August 17, 2016
Page 4 of 12
• Noted the inside spaces were not normal because the houses were being maxed out to get
maximum square footage and it was creating some odd looking pieces of architecture.
• Suggested creating courtyards in the back of the some of the homes to make the space more
usable. �
• Suggested using grids to help create an internally consistent set of design ideas.
• Asked if the plans had been reviewed by the Fire Department for fire truck turnaround. Mr.
Garcia confirmed it had been.
Lot 3
• Confused with the roof on the rendering and noted it was a complicated roof and it didn't
need to be. Suggested it would be easier to match the plate height.
• Noted the stepping should be simplified and suggested using two less steps or make it
more dramatic.
• Made a suggestion regarding the light well and the retaining wall and how it could have a
nice door going out to it and to square the room off more.
• Noted the window locations had no relationship between the floors.
• Noted the North arrow on the plans had been turned upside down.
Lot 6
• Curious about the couple of cases where there was horizontal wood screens in front of the
egress windows and if those windows opened. Mr. Bdeiwi said yes.
• Noted the top elevation was called front and the next one down was called east and asked
for consistency. Asked if using orientation to be sure and put a North arrow on the floor
plans.
• Asked if the trim on left and right side of the garage were different. Mr. Bdeiwi said no.
• Noted the 22 foot long dining room.
Lot 8
• Stated when building a traditional style it should look as though it was built with
traditional materials. The arches on this design were so close to the top of the wall, there
would have been no space for the traditional voussoir stones or bricks that would have
formed the structure of the arch.
• Wondered why all the arches could not be the same and it would be an improvement if
they were.
• Concerned with the traditional Moarish design that had a modern garage door with two
different arches. The Committee suggested the arches be simplified.
• The roof forms in the rear of the two-story element appear to have a different plate height
than the rest of the roof and suggested making the plate heights the same.
• Noted traditionally on the front elevation a huge opening would not have the bearing
points falling on the mid span of the arches below.
• Wanted the entrance to be studied and organized better. Thought it should be either more
asymmetrical or symmetrical.
• Noted how all the effort was put on the front fa�ade and it fell away in the back.
Suggested if the backyard was usable, something should be done to it.
• Noted the screen across the front and the windows behind it have no relationship to what
was happening in the next layer.
• Questioned how the roof came into the balustrade.
• Noted the elements were not centered inside and out and it made the fa�ade chaotic.
• Concerned with a lot of roof issues and the project was not buildable.
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for August 17, 2016
Page 5 of 12
• Confused by a row of windows that did not follow a particular rhythm and that they were
all inside one room.
Clubhouse
• Concerned with the arches right up against the top of the building.
• Suggested having a little more fun with the basketball backstop.
• Liked how the doors were centered in every bay where there was an arch.
Landscape
• Discussed the retaining wall in the back area and suggested using the contour of the land
to determine where the wall should be.
• Wanted the back proposed retaining wall to have a vine on the wall such as Boston ivy to
make it green.
• Wanted the HOA to maintain the slopes on Lot 6 and 7.
• Wanted consistent tree scape with the different Phases.
• Verified that the common seating area at the end of the cul-de-sac would be maintained
by the HOA. Wanted the various areas being maintained by the HOA be marked on the
plans.
For Preliminary Review—no action required.
�
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for August l 7, 2016
Page 6 of 12
(3) DRC No. 4823-15 Encore Residences Hewes
• A request to approve subsequently returning landscape plans associated with an approved 12-
unit senior apartment project.
• 130 S. Hewes Street
• Staff Contact: Chad Ortlieb, (714) 744-7237, cortlieb(c�cityoforan_�g
• 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 Roger Hobbs, Jeff Moore, and Jim Langston.
Mr. Moore explained the changes to the landscaping plan as a result of previous DRC comments.
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 Committee liked the fountain.
• Happy to see the trees at the end of the streets.
• Questioned the color and material for the picnic table. Mr. Langston said it would be earth
tones. The Committee did not care if it was metal or concrete but did not want plastic.
• Noted there are 5 varieties of Magnolia grandiflora and suggested using St. Mary's or if they
wanted it to go big to use Majestic Beauty.
• Noted S7 did not last long and after 5 years it might not look good.
• Noted there was no plant size hierarchy and they may be fighting with each other.
• Wanted the applicant to think about making the picnic table accessible.
Vice Chair Wheeler made a motion to approve DRC No. 4823-15, Encore Residences Hewes, based
on the findings and conditions listed in the Staff Report with the following additional conditions:
1. The developer shall not be held to install the picnic table per the design shown on the
drawings and shall have the flexibility to do something else as long as it is a seating area and
it meets the City's definition of a site amenity.
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 August 17, 2016
Page 7 of 12
New Agenda Items:
(4) DRC No. 4807-15 —Killefer Square
• A proposal to reuse a historic school building, listed in the National Register of Historic
Places, and construct eight new buildings with 80 units of apartment-style student housing
with a total of 354 beds. The applicant is requesting a second preliminary review by the DRC
to receive feedback on the proposed project, including rehabilitation of the historic building
and the mass, scale and design of the new construction.
• 541 N. Lemon Street
• Staff Contact: Marissa Moshier, 714-744-7243, mmoshier(a�cityoforan�g
• DRC Action: Preliminary Review
Marissa Moshier, Associate Planner-Historic Preservation, presented a project overview consistent
with the Staff Report. She explained that as a result of the LSA report, the applicant had revised the
project to lessen the impacts to the historic building but due to the mass and scale, staff was in
agreement with the LSA report that the new construction was not in conformance with the
Secretary's Standards.
The applicants who were present for this project were Leason Pomeroy, Doug DeCinces, and Frank
Haselton.
Mr. Pomeroy explained where the project had been a year ago and where they are now. He
addressed the 15 concerns he had received from Old Towne Preservation Association, who opposed
the student housing project as proposed. He stated that the proposed density was required to pay for
the costs of the project, including rehabilitation of the building.
Mr. Pomeroy also responded to the 23 comments the DRC had made at the preliminary review on
September 2, 2015. Mr. DeCinces stated they have taken all the suggestions and made all the
adaptions over the past year to answers all the concerns.
Public Comments:
Chair Fox opened the item to the Public for comments.
Jeff Frankel, Old Towne Historic Preservation, said OTPA had met with the applicant at community
meetings. He stated that the new project still did not meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards;
still totally obscures the historic resource from Lemon Street; the infill buildings still crowd the
historic resource; the 8' setback was limited on Lemon Street; the density, bulk, and mass were
inconsistent with the historic resource; the findings LSA made for the previous proposal still applied
to this current proposal; supported the LSA assessment and staff comments; and that the economics
of this project cannot be considered.
Tony Trabucco, address on file, said that if this structure was elsewhere and not a historic structure
the project could be appropriate, and he did not want to get seduced by the fact it was for Chapman
University student housing.
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for August 17, 2016
Page 8 of 12
Chair Fox opened the item to the Committee for discussion.
• Appreciated the comments made by the public and recognize the major effort the applicant
had made by listening to comments and reading the bulletins.
• Noted the staff report was excellent especially with the photos of the interior and character
defining features of the site.
• Impressed with the professional assessment provided by LSA.
• Noted how appropriate the historic school was to the neighborhood.
• Agreed that Chapman University needs more housing but could not evaluate how this site
would alleviate that problem.
• Did not hear the applicant's response to the DRC suggestion from the prior meeting to
reorient the buildings and open up the courtyard mare. Mr. DeCinces asked for clarification
since the courtyard had been 100% kept. The DRC responded saying it was closed off to
Lemon Street.
• Thought the site should be opened up so the courtyard was a reasonable size and wanted the
buildings reduced and oriented along the sides to address the scale and density.
• Verified that the report from LSA was based on the first design and had not been modified to
evaluate the current proposal.
• Agreed with the comments about the impact on the Lemon Street side of the property which
was creating a long linear elevation against the street frontage which was not the
predominant development pattern found in Old Towne.
• Wanted an approach that was more aligned in the east-west direction which would break up
the Lemon Street frontage and start to conform more to the surroundings. Suggested looking
at 3 smaller buildings in the other direction.
• Thought the addition of the driveway and view corridor was a token response and was not a
big enough change.
• Questioned the 8' setback on Lemon Street and that it did not seem to be within the
conventional building pattern in Old Towne.
• Not concerned with the architecture but it was a density and visibility issue.
• In the historic building, recommended keeping the partitions within each classroom below
the level of the ceiling, so that the sense of the large classroom space would be retained.
• Noted the LSA report added a new dimension to understanding the project.
• Asked what the lot coverage was. Ms. Moshier said it was 1.1 FAR and the lot coverage was
.5.
• Suggested doing something to open up the view of the historic building more from Olive
Street where there is a bike enclosure. Making the fence mare transparent would be an
improvement.
• Asked if the applicant was going to do a computer model to show the view from Lemon
Street into the courtyard. Wanted some human eye visualization for what the project would
look like.
• Appreciated the number of comments the applicant had addressed from the ones listed on the
LSA report.
• Wanted the applicant, when they return, to identify the comments listed by LSA on the plans.
• Glad the dormer on the historic building was removed and liked putting one unit in each
classroom and retaining the ceilings.
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for August 17, 2016
Page 9 of 12
• Noted the additions should be subordinate and the new proposal had an incredibly long
building on Lemon Street.
• Noted the first 2 items on the LSA report regarding spatial relationships between the main
school house, the adjacent residential properties and streets; and the roughly u-shaped plan of
the historic building's courtyard had not been addressed. The project created an enclosed
courtyard where one did not exist.
• Questioned if the setback on Lemon Street should be further back.
• Asked if the new building height could be higher and not concerned with the height if it was
dealt with properly on the site.
• Wanted the additions to speak to the historic building and not concerned if the new buildings
take on a more contemporary form using traditional materials.
• Suggested using palm trees in the corridor behind the two story building so that the tree tops
would be visible in front of the larger three story building on Lemon Street.
• Wanted a tour or site visit, potentially arranged by staff, to better understand the context of
the character defining features not seen from the street.
• Not looking at having every single character defining feature of the historic building
celebrated in the same way. A hierarchy needed to be created to address them.
• For the wall on Lemon Street suggested using a 42" high wall with glass above or staggering
the setbacks in 10 or 20 foot lengths along the entire length of the wall and covering it with
vines.
• Asked if there would be food services provided on the site. Mr. DeCinces said it would be
provided by vending machines. Each unit has its own kitchen.
• Complimented the applicant on the 3 dimensional models and for the fact that they had
engaged a consultant to review the project at this stage.
Frank Haselton, from LSA, stated he agreed with the Planning staff report. He said of the 10 criteria
of the Secretary's Standards listed by LSA, 7 of them focused mostly on the treatment of the
defining elements of the building that had been addressed. What remained to be addressed was the
impacts to the spatial relationships. A traffic analysis had been done using apartment rates and since
students would be primarily walking, those mitigation issues had gone away.
Mr. Pomeroy stated they cannot do an ornate wa11 with historical information on Olive Street but
they could have monument elements along the edge of the sidewalk.
For Preliminary Review—no action required.
,
CiTy of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for August 17, 2016
Page 10 of 12
5) DRC No. 4822-15 Encore Residences Prospect
• A proposal to construct 28 senior apartments and associated improvements.
• 184 N. Prospect Avenue
• Staff Contact: Chad Ortlieb, (714) 744-7237
• DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission
Robert Garcia, Senior Planner, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report.
The applicants who were present for this project were Roger Hobbs, Jeff Moore, and Jim Langston.
Mr. Hobbs, based on DRC comments, addressed the patio areas along Prospect that would now be
within the units which eliminated the privacy and security issues; the hip roof element had been
modified; the shadow that occurred on the two-story apartment complex had been eliminated and the
common area had been moved to the middle.
Mr. Moore spoke about the changes to architectural items including consistency of the windows
between the floors; making the common area more interesting and adding a common deck; and
softening the corners on the buildings making them more decorative.
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.
• Noted the staff report mentioned the AC units were not allowed on the front setback. Mr.
Moore said the condensers would be placed behind a landscaped screened area.
• Glad the 2 patios along the sidewalk were removed.
• Asked what was happening in the area where the patios were being removed. Mr. Moore
said it would be a landscape area.
• Concerned with the open grade along Prospect and was told it would be a landscape area with
columns supporting the second floor. Suggested cantilevering the upper decks.
• Suggested on the streetscape using vertical landscaping by using Carolina Cherry/Prunus
Caroliniana or Podocarpus.
• Still some plan issues with the location of the windows that did not line up with the
elevations in the stair area.
• Wanted the shutters to be shown on Plan A1.09.
• Noted the improvements that had been made since the preliminary review.
• Asked if there would be no enclosure in the patio/rec area and if it would be open to the
street. Suggested placing a wrought iron fence or bushes to enclose the area. Mr. Moore
agreed as long as it met the Fire Department requirements.
• Noted on the landscape drawing the second story balcony was flush with the face of the
building and suggested placing trees to block the view. Mr. Moore said in case it did not
meet Fire approval, they could plant trees on the second deck.
• Noted the landscape plan did not show the deck columns shown on the floor plan.
• Wanted the landscaping to be included on the plan where the front patios have been removed.
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for August 17,2016
Page 11 of 12
• Liked the idea of pulling the columns back by 1' to 2' and cantilevering covered patios
above. Suggested using Tristania conferta in that location.
• Asked what was in the zone in front of the common area. Mr. Moore said it was electrical
panels with the doors on the side and it would be a solid stucco wall. Suggested planting
Espalier there.
• Suggested putting up the same railing treatment by the outdoor area and setback the wall a
few inches from the columns.
Vice Chair Wheeler made a motion to recommend approval of DRC No. 4822-15, Encore
Residences Prospect, to the Planning Commission based on the findings and conditions listed in the
Staff Report with the following additional conditions:
1. The first floor columns with the two supports for the upper floor balconies along Prospect be
recessed approximately 2' from the current location.
2. On the outdoor area north of the clubhouse on the first story shall be enclosed with walls and
railings matching the nearby false railing in front of the electrical room. The perimeter wall
shall be pulled back to match the recess of the arch false opening.
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 August 17, 20]6
Page 12 of 12
I
ADJOURNMENT:
Vice Chair Wheeler made a motion to adjourn to the next Design Review Committee meeting on
Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 5:00 p.m.
SECOND: Tim McCormack
AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Anne McDermott, and Craig Wheeler
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED.
Meeting adjourned at 9:32 p.m.
i
I
i
i
I
i