2016-11-02 DRC Final Minutes CITY OF ORANGE
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
MINUTES -FINAL
November 2, 2016
Committee Members Present: Carol Fox - Chair
Craig Wheeler—Vice Chair
Robert Imboden
Tim McCormack
Committee Member Absent: Anne McDermott
Staff in Attendance: Robert Garcia, Senior Planner
Marissa Moshier, Historic Preservation Planner
Sharon Penttila, Recording Secretary
Administrative Session —5:00
Chair Fox opened the Administrative Session at 5:02 p.m.
Chair Fox inquired if there was any Policy or Procedural information. Mr. Garcia indicated there
was no Policy or Procedural information.
Vice Chair Wheeler wanted to know if the City had given any thought to providing electronic
packages instead of paper packages. Chair Fox voiced concern with having just electronic packages.
The Committee discussed the option of making a motion on the first two items on the agenda
without discussion.
Chair Fox explained that staff wanted to verify that the Committee Members would be available for
the December 21 St meeting to ensure a quorum. The Committee Members indicated they would be
available.
Chair Fox stated at the next DRC meeting on November 16th Chapman University's Villa Park
Orchard project would be heard.
Committee Members reviewed the Design Review Committee minutes for October 5, 2016.
Vice Chair Wheeler made a motion to close the Administrative Session of the Design Review
Committee meeting.
SECOND: Tim McCormack
AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, and Craig Wheeler
NOES: None
ABSENT: Anne McDermott
MOTION CARRIED.
Administrative Session adjourned at 5:15 p.m.
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for November 2, 2016
Page 2 of 8
Regular Session—5:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Committee Member McDermott was absent. All other 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: October 5,2016
Vice Chair Wheeler made a motion to approve the minutes from the Design Review Committee
meeting of October 5, 2016, as emended during the discussion at the Administrative Session.
SECOND: Tim McCormack
AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, and Craig Wheeler
NOES: None
ABSENT: Anne McDermott
MOTION CARRIED.
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for November 2, 2016
Page 3 of 8
AGENDA ITEMS
Continued Items:
(2) DRC No.4764-14—The New Home Company(Marywood Site)
• Final review of the entry design elements for the construction of 40 new detached two-story
single-family residences at the former Marywood Pastoral Center.
• 2811 East Villareal Drive
• Staff Contact: Robert Garcia, 714-744-7231, rgarcia@cityoforange.org
• DRC Action: Final Determination
The reading of the staff report was waived.
Public Comments:
Chair Fox opened the item to the Public for comments. There were no speakers.
The Committee clarified that the exhibits at the meeting appeared to be all duplicates of what was in
their packet; the material boards reflected the same materials as the image found on the staff report;
and the design of the gates had changed somewhat from the last submittal.
Chair Fox asked the Committee if anyone wanted to pull the item for discussion and they said no.
Vice Chair Wheeler made a motion to approve DRC 4764-14, The New Home Company
(Marywood Site), based on the findings and conditions listed in the Staff Report:
SECOND: Robert Imboden
AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, and Craig Wheeler
NOES: None
ABSENT: Anne McDermott
MOTION CARRIED.
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for November 2,2016
Page 4 of 8
(3) DRC No. 4831-15 Olson Company
• The site lighting plan showing both the lighting and tree locations for the approved project
consisting of 37 new townhomes in a one story overlay district.
• Vacant lot south side of Washington and Hamlin
• Staff Contact: Robert Garcia, (714) 744-7231, r�arcia(a�cit. o��org
• DRC Action: Final Determination
The reading of the staff report was waived.
Public Comments:
Chair Fox opened the item to the Public for comments. There were no speakers.
Committee Member Imboden made a motion to approve DRC 4831-15, Olson Company, based on
the findings and conditions listed in the Staff Report:
SECOND: Tim McCormack
AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, and Craig Wheeler
NOES: None
ABSENT: Anne McDermott
MOTION CARRIED.
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for November 2, 2016
Page 5 of 8
New A�enda Item•
DRC No. 48�7-15—Killefer Square
• A proposal to adaptively reuse a historic school building, listed in the National Register of
Historic Places, and construct new buildings with 331 beds of student housing. The applicant
has reduced the size of the new construction and is requesting feedback from the DRC on the
mass, scale and design of the revised project.
• 541 N. Lemon Street
• Staff Contact: Marissa Moshier, 714-744-7243, mmoshier(a�cityoforan�org
• DRC Action: Preliminary Review
Marissa Moshier, Historic Preservation Planner, presented a project overview consistent with the
Staff Report. She discussed some of the revisions made since the last meeting which included an
increase to the building setbacks on Lemon Street; reduction in the overall height of the largest new
building; and the change to the roof forms of the new construction.
The applicant present for this project was Leason Pomeroy. He responded to the comments made by
the DRC at the October Sth meeting which included the setbacks; size of the building; mass and
density; and the context to the neighborhood.
Mr. Pomeroy provided a three dimensional model of the neighborhood which he had constructed.
He also shared a display board showing the progression that has been made during the first three
meetings. He further explained the changes made to the setbacks; building height (reducing the bed
count); reduction in the FAR; reduction in mass by breaking the one building into two; the context to
the neighborhood; and the layering of the landscaping.
Public Comments:
Chair Fox opened the item to the Public for comments.
Teri Lepe, representing the Orange Barrio Historical Society, was in opposition to the development.
She explained how the structure overwhelms the site and how it would change the quality of life in
the neighborhood by increasing noise, and pedestrian and vehicular traffic. She also voiced concern
with the Chapman University student population being placed in the neighborhood as opposed to on-
campus housing. Chair Fox clarified that the purview of the DRC was related to the aesthetics of the
project, and not noise and traffic.
Jeff Frankel, address on file and representing OTPA, stated they appreciated the effort to save the
historic school buildings but the changes to the project still did not bring it close to satisfying the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards. He noted it was a high density apartment complex located
within a single story residential neighborhood; it was an improvement by opening up the courtyard
but there were still many issues with the project including the five-story building not being
compatible with the historical building or the surrounding neighborhood; issues with the bulk and
mass; and setbacks; that the infill development should be subordinate to the historic structure; and
that it would most likely not comply with the CEQA guidelines.
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for November 2, 2016
Page 6 of 8
Tony Trabucco, address on file, said even though there have been several revisions he didn't want
anyone's opinion to be swayed by the fact that it had been reduced in size and mass.
Chair Fox opened the item to the Committee for discussion.
• Still thought the issue came down to bulk and mass.
• Asked staff about R-3 zoning and how they set parameters on mass and FAR in terms of this
type of zoning. Ms. Moshier explained this property has a split between the General Plan
Designation and the zoning. The GP designation is Public Institution and the zoning is R-3
and part of this proposal was to change the zoning to Public Institution with a Specific Plan
with development standards for the Specific Plan area.
• Thought a lot of the burden fell upon the sustainability of the landscape to find out what is
acceptable to screen the project noting the concern with Fire Department laddering
requirements.
• Thought the 20' was getting to a doable setback but concerned with the north and south side
of the project going only from 8' to 10'.
• Thought the model helped in terms of context.
• Clarified that the parking structure perimeter underneath was not within the 20' setback.
• Liked the direction the project was going and setting the fifth story back.
• Concerned with the privacy for the neighboring houses on the east side of the large mass.
• Suggested getting a preliminary review by the Fire Department on what the laddering
requirements will be.
• Thought breaking up the two masses and setting the top story back helped a lot.
• Needed to know if the landscape screening would work and would like to see a study as to
how it relates to the residences on the east side as far as bulk, mass, and privacy.
• Wondered what would happen to the economics of the project if the number of units were
scaled down to the point of needing only one level of parking.
• Noted it was a transitional neighborhood and not hugely worried about a big, tall building.
• Asked if the height of the school building on the model was to the ridge and Mr. Pomeroy
said yes.
• Appreciated the model because otherwise the packet was not dealing with context.
„ • With the model, concerned that the historic building was shown as a big block when actually
it had a sloping roof so the profile would be very different within the neighborhood
surrounded by other buildings with similar roof forms.
• Noted the opening of the courtyard is an important aspect of the proposal.
• Concerned the 8'-10' side yard setbacks are minimal for a building of that height.
• Noted the privacy to the neighbors has not been addressed at all.
• The flat roofs have helped with the height but there are still issues with internal consistency
both on the property and neighborhood context.
• The trees help but concerned that landscape is being asked to mitigate impacts in Old Towne.
• Thought there was a lot of openness on the site but it was a tough argument that it was
compatible with the historic structure and the neighborhood.
• Concerned each time it comes back for review a little more is nibbled off and the changes
have to be really substantial and be compatible with the surroundings.
• It still has a strong vertical face on the sides and across the front.
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for November 2, 2016
Page 7 of 8
• Have less concern with the height but more concern with the bulk and mass of the new
construction.
• Wanted to approve a project that was compatible with the surroundings and meets the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards.
• Asked how many bed counts and units were being reduced. Mr. Pomeroy said 23 beds and
6-7 units.
• Big concern was the privacy issue, especially the back corner (northeast), which needs to be
addressed when the project returns to the DRC.
• Noted the whole proposal was still counting on acquiring the extra parcel. Without that
parcel the project would require a different design.
• Noted the trees could be effective as screening with the 20' setback.
• Liked the site planning and the massing of the site planning with the building broken up.
• Noted the advantage to preserving the historic building and thought some concession should
be given knowing that building would be saved.
• Wanted the laddering issues vetted with the Fire Department before coming back to the
DRC.
• Asked if the trash yard had disappeared and Mr. Pomeroy said trash chutes would be used so
the trash would be collected in the basement.
• Asked if the texture on the existing school building was original. Mr. Pomeroy said the
original color was very dark reddish brown and it may have been replastered.
• Asked if there would be exterior balconies and was told no.
Mr. Pomeroy said that if the bulk and mass of the new construction were not acceptable he needs to
know that now. He noted the terms bulk and mass are subjective and they cannot come up with a
formula to determine that. Committee Member Imboden stated that the project needed to be
acceptable to the neighbors in adjacent properties.
Committee Member Imboden asked staff that before this project comes to them as an action item,
the Committee should walk the property.
For Preliminary Review—no action required.
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for November 2, 2016
Page 8 of 8
ADJOURNMENT:
Committee Member McCormack made a motion to adjourn to the next Design Review Committee
meeting on Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 5:00 p.m.
SECOND: Craig Wheeler
AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, and Craig Wheeler
NOES: None
ABSENT: Anne McDermott
MOTION CARRIED.
Meeting adjourned at 7:01 p.m.