2016-10-05 DRC Final Minutes CITY OF ORANGE
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
MINUTES - FINAL
October 5, 2016
Committee Members Present: Carol Fox - Chair
Craig Wheeler—Vice Chair
Robert Imboden
Tim McCormack
Anne McDermott
Staff in Attendance: Robert Garcia, Senior Planner/Master of Ceremonies
Anna Pehoushek, Asst. Community Development Director
Marissa Moshier, Senior Historic Preservation Planner
Kelly Ribuffo, Associate Planner
Sharon Penttila, Recording Secretary
Administrative Session—5:00
Chair Fox opened the Administrative Session at 5:02 p.m.
Mr. Garcia suggested rearranging the order of the two agenda items in which Item #3, Scully
Residence, would be heard before Item#2, Killefer Square.
Chair Fox inquired if there was any Policy or Procedural information. Mr. Garcia indicated there
was no Policy or Procedural information.
Ms. Pehoushek provided an update to questions the Committee had at the previous DRC meeting.
She discussed the A-frame signs in the Plaza area and how those are being accommodated more than
other locations in the City due to City Council direction. Committee Member McDermott wanted to
see aesthetic guidelines established.
Ms. Moshier explained that Code Enforcement was working with Walkin' Dog on their banner and
signage.
Ms. Pehoushek indicated that the updated Old Towne Design Standards was now in draft form. Ms.
Moshier said it has been turned over to a graphic designer to package and would be ready for peer
review by a consultant in a month or so. After the peer review, Community meetings would begin
and the DRC would be able to review it during the first part of the New Year.
Committee Member McDermott said she may not be present at the November 2°d DRC meeting.
Mr. Garcia explained that the ARCO gas station sign on E. Chapman Avenue was just a face
replacement using the existing frame so it was allowed. Committee Members commented on how
bright the sign was.
Chair Fox disclosed that she had met with Ms. Moshier, Jeff Frankel, Bill Crouch, and Leason
Pomeroy at the project site located at 468 N. Olive Street to look at framing conditions uncovered
during construction. They discussed an alternative way to deal with the deteriorating walls,
reconstructing one wall at a time with new framing and salvaged siding.
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for October 5, 2016
Page 2 of 9
Committee Members reviewed the Design Review Committee minutes for September 21, 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 5:26 p.m.
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for October 5, 2016
Page 3 of 9
Regular Session—5:32 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: SEPTEMBER 21, 2016
Committee Member McDermott made a motion to approve the minutes from the Design Review
Committee meeting of September 21, 2016, as emended during the discussion at the Administrative
Session.
SECOND: Craig Wheeler
AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Anne McDermott, and Craig Wheeler
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED.
Committee Member Imboden made a motion to reorganize the agenda switching the order of Items
#2 and#3, hearing Item#3 first.
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 October 5, 2016
Page 4 of 9
AGENDA ITEMS
New Agenda Items:
(3) DRC No. 4867-16—Scully Accessory Unit
• A proposal to construct a new detached accessory second housing unit. The property is a
contributing historic resource within the Old Towne National Historic District.
• 567 E. Van Bibber Avenue
• Staff Contact: Kelly Ribuffo, 714-744-7223, kribuffo(a�citvoforan�e.or�
• DRC Action: Final Determination
Kelly Ribuffo, Associate Planner, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report.
The applicants who were present for this project were Doug Ely and Shawn Scully.
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:
• Clarified that Jessica Perez was Mr. Scully's wife.
• Asked about the doors on the rear of the existing garage and was it to remain that way. Mr.
Ely said they were not making any changes.
• Asked about access to the carriage house and Mr. Ely said there would now be driveway
access to it.
• Questioned the lack of corner trim and thought it should be kept.
• Noted the fascia being used on the exposed rafter tails but usually it would be built in the
simplest way possible and this seemed too fancy by putting fascias on it.
• Questioned the vents shown on three sides of the structure and thought it did not look
appropriate. Mr. Ely said it was just a choice they made but they could be rectangular.
• Suggested pushing the vents up to the top and either use two windows with an outlooker in
between or one window with outlookers on each side.
• Questioned the gable of the dormer over the front and thought it would be more appropriate
as a shed dormer.
• Noted it was a nice submittal.
Vice Chair Wheeler made a motion to approve DRC No. 4867-16, Scully Accessory Unit, based on
the findings and conditions listed in the Staff Report with the following additional conditions:
1. The vents and windows shown on the elevations shall be raised as high as possible to the
interior ceiling line, widen slightly, and the outlooker beams be moved to either side of the
new vents and windows
2. The roof over the entry shall be changed from the gable as shown to a shed roof as illustrated
on an earlier submittal except pushing it back to the location of the existing dormer as shown
on the current drawings.
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for October 5, 2016
Page 5 of 9
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 October 5, 2016
Page 6 of 9
(2) DRC No. 4807-15 —Killefer Square
• A proposal to reuse a historic school building, listed in the National Register of Historic
Places, and construct new buildings with 81 units of apartment-style student housing with a
total of 354 beds. The applicant is requesting a third preliminary review by the DRC to
receive feedback on the revised 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�citvoforan�org
• DRC Action: Preliminary Review
Marissa Moshier, Historic Preservation Planner, presented a project overview consistent with the
Staff Report. She stated that staff found the six story building and setbacks were not compatible
with the neighborhood, and that the new construction would substantially change the character of N.
Lemon Street.
The applicants who were present for this project were Leason Pomeroy and Doug DeCinces.
Mr. Pomeroy responded to the comments and suggestions previously made by Jeff Frankel, Old
Towne Preservation Association (OTPA), and the Design Review Committee and he spoke to the
concerns that had been raised.
Mr. DeCinces presented the proposed project with board illustrations. The boards showed how the
courtyard design had been changed since the first two proposals; the design of the project with and
without the additional School District property to the north; examples of buildings in the Historic
District which are similar in size and showing some of them across from historic homes; examples of
existing Chapman University student housing; examples of the mass and scale of existing buildings
and how many cubic feet were in various buildings compared to their proposed project; the scale and
height of the project as seen from Lemon Street; and an illustration of the open space and which is
now proposed for the area west of the historic school courtyard to increase its visibility from Lemon
Street.
Mr. Pomeroy discussed the three issues that needed to be addressed which included the height of the
building, the mass of the building, and the density. He stated that the most difficult, subjective issue
was determining density.
Chair Fox clarified that discussion of density was not the purview of the Design Review Committee.
She also stated that it was not reasonable for the DRC to consider for comparison a hypothetical
project (Chapman University dorms on Cypress Street) that has not been vetted through Planning
staff.
Public Comments:
Chair Fox opened the item to the Public for comments.
�
�
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for October 5, 2016
Page 7 of 9
Jeff Frankel, address on file and representing OTPA, stated that it still was not in compliance with
the Secretary of the Interior's Standards; the project was too dense; bulk and massing scale was out
of character in context to the single-story residential neighborhood; creates an impact to the historic
site, surrounding neighborhood, and adjacent National Register historic district; it was an
improvement as far as the preservation of the courtyard but the six stary building was not; the
setback was too small for a large building; it would change the character of N. Lemon Street; the
Barrio would be impacted the most by having 350 additional individuals and cars in the
neighborhood; did not think there was any way to mitigate the impacts that the project would create
to a less than significant status including CEQA issues; and thought the examples the applicant gave
to compare existing projects to this one were inappropriate.
Tony Trabucco, address on file and representing OTPA, said that the need for Chapman student
housing shouldn't influence the decision making of the DRC; concerned that the DRC should not be
influenced by the fact the applicant has put a lot of money into the project so far; noted that renting a
house would be cheaper than a dorm; and asked would anyone want to live across from this project.
Teri Lepe, address on file and representing the Orange Barrio Historical Society, stated they were
opposed to the development and concerned with the increased pedestrian traffic changing the feel of
the Barrio area.
Jerome Ryan, address on file, stated he lives on N. Lemon Street and this would greatly impact his
neighborhood; the project does not fit Old Towne; the comparison of other developments were
unfair; that pedestrian traffic in the area was already difficult; asked if the volleyball and basketball
courts were for public use and was told no; the scale and density was too large and setbacks were not
big enough; the parking in the neighborhood was already bad; and suggested enticing the
neighborhood with some public use areas.
Chair Fox clarified that the traffic impacts would be the purview of the Planning Commission.
Cash Ryan, address on file, was also opposed to the project and the view from his house would no
longer be tall palm trees but a tall Chapman building with additional cars on N. Lemon Street.
Chair Fox opened the item to the Committee for discussion:
• One Committee member was not that concerned with the mass of the new structure but very
concerned with the setback which was unacceptable.
• Noted the examples the applicant illustrated have good setbacks such as the Chapman
University law school, compared with the proposed project.
• Questioned the aesthetics choice of the brick on the sixty story building.
• Questioned the two phasing plans where one has additional property that has not been
acquired and asked if they both had the same number of units. Mr. Pomeroy said there
would be a reduction in the number of unit in the small plan without the additional property.
• Agreed with the consultant and staff report that the historic preservation standards have been
met to free up the area around historic resource.
• The mass and the 54' building needed to be talked about.
• Liked the brick because it helps to break up the fa�ade.
• Thought the streetscape on Lemon Street was not working.
• Noted the main crux was needing more guidance on the mass, scale, and setback issues.
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for October 5, 2016
Page 8 of 9
• Noted that all the presentations were based on the hypothetical acquisition of the extra land
the applicant may not get and the design in the smaller lot was worse because it was obscured
the historic building from Lemon Street. Ms. Moshier stated that a change to the design
would have an impact to the historic resources and aesthetics sections of the EIR.
• Asked if this design made the neighborhood better.
• Wondered if the new construction should be more of a Spanish style to match the existing
school.
• Main issue that needed to be addressed was the size of the project.
• Agreed that opening up the courtyard was a huge improvement but it came at a high cost
with the larger buildings.
• Agreed that the setback was not in line with the proposed vertical elevation of the new six
story building.
• Noted the law school was the most detrimental example of historic preservation and that the
standards of review had improved since that project was approved.
• Noted the DRC's previous response about having a little less concern over pushing the height
of the new construction in terms of preserving the visibility of the historic courtyard from
Lemon Street had been taken further than imagined.
• Concerned with the new six story building being located behind the one story house.
• Noted that the DRC has spent an enormous amount of time mitigating privacy issues
concerning window placement on other smaller projects.
• Noted the massing was not mitigating the impacts to the surrounding properties.
• Thought the site plan was great by breaking up the buildings by taking away the long vertical
ones and putting in shorter ones, varying the setbacks and opening the courtyard but would
be unable to approve such a tall building with no changes to lessen the impact to surrounding
properties.
• Thought if the taller structure moved closer to the historic school it would mitigate the
impacts on one person's backyard to the north but then the mass would be transferred and
obscure parts of the historic school.
• Questioned if the project was asking too much of the site.
• Noted if only the three story buildings were the project, the Committee would be trying to
reconcile how to make it work in this context. In this case, one of the buildings proposed was
an additional three stories on top of that.
• Noted that the 8' setback was not set up to accommodate any landscaping that would screen
height of the building.
• Noted the recently approved Chapman University Musco Center dug out their site to get what
they needed height wise.
• The main direction from the DRC included bigger setbacks, more stepped back massing, and
less height for the new construction.
• Distinguished between projects built on the Chapman campus versus off the campus.
• Stated that the DRC have certain standards that they have to deal with in judging the project
based on the Historic District and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment
of Historic Properties.
Mr. DeCinces pointed out that existing Chapman University parking structures and the student
housings are all by single story neighborhoods.
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for October 5, 2016
Page 9 of 9
The Committee stated that the Chapman University buildings were part of a campus setting and in a
different context than the proposed project.
For Preliminary review only—no action required
ADJOURNMENT:
Committee Member Imboden made a motion to adjourn to the next Design Review Committee
meeting on Wednesday, October 19, 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 7:31 p.m.
f
�:,
'F;
r