Loading...
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