2017-07-05 DRC Final Minutes �
1 CITY OF ORANGE
2 DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
3 MINUTES -FINAL
� � 4 July 5, 2017
5 Committee Members Present: Robert Imboden—Chair
� `�'������ � ���� � 6 TimMcCormac
� Carol Fox
g Anne McDermott
9
10 Staff in Attendance: Jennifer Le, Principal Planner
11 Robert Garcia, Senior Planner
12 Kelly Ribuffo, Associate Planner
13 Carly Mallon, Recording Secretary
14
15 Administrative Session—5:00
16
17 Chair Imboden opened the Administrative Session at 5:17 p.m.
18
19 Chair Imboden inquired if there was any Policy or Procedural information. Jennifer Le, Principal
20 Planner, indicated there was no Policy or Procedural information but that staff wanted to provide
21 supplemental information for some items on the agenda.
22
23 Kelly Ribuffo, Associate Planner, informed the Committee that there were three items added as
24 attachments to the staff report for the Villa Park Orchards agenda item and distributed copies of those
25 attachrYents. Ribuffo updated the Committee on the Zoning Administrator meeting that also occuned
' he Villa Park Orchards VPO)item noting that no members of the public attended.
on Jul 5 2017 for t � .
26 ,
i Y
he
mended a roval of the variance for t
27 It was also noted that the Zomng Admmistrator recom pp
28 relocation of the two accessory buildings.
29
30 Jennifer Le,Principal Planner,informed the Committee that the applicant for the Unity Middle College
31 High School agenda item was hoping to open the facility in August 2017.
32
33 Committee Member Fox inquired with staff about the supplemental information that was provided
34 with the VPO staff report,noting that one of the letters from the public seemed to think that the Packing
35 House was being moved and just wanted to be sure that it was clarified for that individual that the
36 Packing House itself was not being moved and only the two accessory buildings would be relocating.
37 Staff confirmed that it was clarified in the City's response letter.
38
39 Chair Imboden asked staff about the Duplex on Washington Avenue agenda item. Chair Imboden
40 inquired if the fire department had reviewed the landscape plan for this project yet. Chair Imboden
41 wanted to know if, moving forward,this review could be done prior to coming to the Design Review
42 Committee as it seemed like a futile effort to have landscape reviewed by DRC and then having to
43 undo the landscape due to fire department requirements.
44
45 Jennifer Le informed the Committee that this was an issue discussed previously and, at the SMART
� 46 level, it had been emphasized that as part of the Fire department's review of plans they should be
47 focusing on landscaping and provide comments as appropriate. Therefore, it was the expectation of
48 staff that the basics of the landscape plan were already vetted by Fire by the time the plans come to
49 the Design Review Committee.
�� 50
,
�
�
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for July 5,2017
Page 2 of 14
� � 1 There were no minutes to review.
2
3 Committee Member Fox made a motion to close the Administrative Session of the Design Review
4 Committee meeting.
5
6 SECOND: Tim McCormack
7 AYES: Robert Imboden, Carol Fox, Tim McCormack, and Anne McDermott
8 NOES: None
9 ABSENT: None
10
11 MOTION CARRIED.
12
13 Administrative Session adjourned at 5:25 p.m.
14
�
�
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for July 5, 2017
Page 3 of 14
� � ( 1 Regular Session—5:32 p.m.
2
3 ROLL CALL:
4
5 All Committee Members were present.
6
7 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:
8
9 Opportunity for members of the public to address the Design Review Committee on matters not listed
10 on the Agenda.
11
12 There were no speakers.
13
14 CONSENT ITEMS:
15
16 (1) APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
� 42
' 43
'� 44
45
; 46
47
48
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for July 5, 2017
Page 4 of 14
1 AGENDA ITEMS
2
3 Continued Items: None
4
5 New Agenda Items:
6
7 (2) Design Review No. 4913-17,Triangle Terrace Landscape
8
9 • Redesign to the existing landscape and irrigation system to a water efficient and drought
10 tolerant landscape at an existing apartment complex.
11 • 555 S. Shaffer
12 • Staff Contact: Robert Garcia, (714) 744-7231, r�arcia(a�cityoforan�e.or�
13 • DRC Action: Final Determination
14
15
16 The Committee did not require a staff report for this item.
17
18 The applicant who was present for this project was Rich DePalma.
19
20 Public Comments:
i, 21
22 Chair Imboden opened the item to the Public for comments. There were none.
23
24 Chair Imboden opened the item to the Committee for discussion.
25
26 The DRC had the following comments:
2� • The irrigation system was done very well but there was a concern, since the buildings were
28 two-story,that the landscapmg facing north might no
t be able to handle the lack of sun
29 exposure long term.
30 • The southwestern corner where the trail was on the creek side seemed to have the trail simply
31 end into a corner of brush. The Committee noted that they would prefer to see a connection
32 between the trail to the sidewalk. It was suggested that the connection be cleaned up with
33 some stepping stones since a lot of people come down the sidewalk to access the trail and the
34 mulch that was currently in place was very worn away.
35 • With regards to the connection between the trail and the sidewalk,the Committee also
36 commented that they were unsure if city or county had the jurisdiction over that corner.
37
38 Committee Member Fox made a motion to approve DRC No. 4913-17, Triangle Terrace Landscape,
39 based on the findings and conditions listed in the Staff Report, and with the following
40 recommendations:
� 41
' 42 1. The applicant should reconsider some of the plantings on the north side of the building
j 43 with respect to their tolerance for shade, and staff can ensure whatever changes may
� 44 occur are still compliant with the design.
45 2. The applicant should work with staff and other jurisdictions with regards to ensuring
46 pedestrians can access the trail adjacent to the property from the sidewalk.
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for July 5,2017
Page 5 of 14
1 SECOND: Anne McDermott
n 2 AYES: Robert Imboden, Carol Fox, Tim McCormack and Anne McDermott
3 NOES: None
4 ABSENT: None
5 MOTION CARRIED
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
��� �. �
�
L� k h. S�
.,��.�`�. q�'�
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for July 5, 2017
Page 6 of 14
1 (3) Design Review No. 4876-16,Nguyen Duplex on Washington Avenue
2
3 • A proposal to demolish an existing single family residence and construct a detached duplex
4 each with a two-car garage and associated site improvements
5 • 4512 E Washington Avenue
6 � Staff Contact: Robert Garcia, (714) 744-7231, rgarcia@cityoforange.org
7 • DRC Action: Final Determination
8
9
10 Robert Garcia, Senior Planner, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report.
11
12 The applicants who were present for this project were Vincent Train and Kyle Crooke.
13
14 Public Comments:
15
16 Chair Imboden opened the item to the Public for comments. There were none.
17
18 Chair Imboden opened the item to the Committee for discussion.
19
20 The DRC had the following comments:
21 • The Committee confirmed with staff that the presented project was exactly the same as its
22 neighboring property including the garage doors, roof tile, planting palette, and paved
23 driveway,but just presented as a mirror image.
24 • There was concern due to the fact that the previously approved project had shading devices
25 added to the west facing windows,but by reversing the plan the east facing windows would
26 have shading. The east facing had a lot of shading across the second story roof eyebrows that
27 were perhaps unnecessary.
28 • The units could remain mirrored but the architectural features could be changed by pulling
29 the gable roof element to the front unit and the hip roof to the back unit, to create some
30 diversity. This way they would still be mirrored but diagonally.
31 • The landscape should not be an exact mirror to the neighboring property and be used as an
32 opportunity to make the properties look different.
33 • In response to an inquiry from the applicant, the Committee suggested using hedges with
34 openings in the narrow space between the two buildings instead of a concrete wall.
35 • On plan B, the front elevation shutters were too close to the archway whereas on Plan A there
36 seemed to have been more breathing room.
37 • On Plan B, the stucco trim above the three windows on the south side could also be
38 improved.
39 � On sheet A-4,the Committee asked the applicant to remove the upper level shading on the
40 left elevation or the two far right and left eyebrows, but keep the ones in the center since
41 there was a gable.
42 • If the two eyebrows on sheet A-4 were removed, then they could be added instead to the west
43 elevation on sheet A-5 to the upstairs and downstairs windows on the right elevation facing
44 west as well as to the two stacked bedroom windows on the right hand elevation.
45 • On sheet A-8 Plan B,the east elevation could have had the far left and right eyebrows taken
46 awa and add one to the sheet A-9,the west elevation where there was a high bedroom
Y
�
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes far July 5, 2017
Page 7 of 14
� 1 window, over the peak of the gable door. There was also an option to add one over the
2 stairwell window.
3 • The shading on the south was still appropriate.
4 • The Committee wanted to see the same plant palette but wanted more variation than a pure
5 mirror image. They suggested that the locations of plantings should be adjusted and perhaps
6 to change the orientation and layout to look different, which could be reviewed by staff.
7 • The Committee wanted to put on the record that they did not approve the joining of the two
8 driveways together between the two properties.
9
' �"' 10 Committee Member Fox made a motion to recommend approval of DRC No. 4876-16, Nguyen
11 Duplex on Washington Avenue, to the Planning Commission based on the findings and conditions
12 listed in the Staff Report, and with the following conditions:
13
14 1. The architectural detailing of Plan A and Plan B be reversed so that the roof line on Plan
15 A would have a gable facing forward and the roof line on Plan B would be the hip version
16 to make it different from the neighbor.
17 2. The trim, shutter layout, and arch forms should be swapped out between Plan A and Plan
18 B.
19 3. The eyebrow shading devices deployed on the east elevations on both Plan A and Plan B
20 be reduced and shading devices be added to west elevations as discussed earlier.
21 4. The landscaping for this plan should have the same palette as proposed, matching the
22 palette of next door, but the layout should be altered to create some distinctive variety on
23 the street scape.
24
25 SECOND: Tim McCormack
26 AYES: Robert Imboden, Carol Fox, Tim McCormack and Anne McDermott
27 NOES: None
28 ABSENT: None
29 MOTION CARRIED
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
�.
�
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for July 5, 2017
Page 8 of 14
1 (4) Design Review No. 4900-17, Villa Park Orchards Association Packing House and West
2 Residential Village
3
4 • A proposal for rehabilitation of the Villa Park Orchards Association (VPOA) Packing House,
5 relocation of existing historic era accessory structures, and construction of a new multi-story,
6 multi-family student residential building(West Residential Village.)The property is within the
7 boundaries of the Local and National Register-listed Old Towne Historic District and the
8 Chapman University Specific Plan.
9 • 350 N. Cypress Street and 400 W. Sycamore Avenue
10 • Staff Contact: Kelly Ribuffo, (714)744-7223, kribuffo@cityoforange.org
11 • DRC Action: Recommendation to the Community Development Director
12
_ ,_� .._ __� -. 13
14 Kelly Ribuffo, Associate Planner, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report.
15
16 The applicants who were present for this project were Kris Olsen, Ken Ryan, Tom Greer, Andrea
17 Cabalo, Johanna Crooker, and Tom Ruzika.
18
19 Committee Member Fox asked staff for direction about the fact that there was a section noted for signs
20 but it did not seem there was anything proposed other than painted signs on the Packing House. She
21 wanted to be sure that this was not to be included as a part of their recommendation.
22
23 Staff clarified that the signs were not an item to be reviewed as a part of the project but will be reviewed
24 as a separate item when sign details are further developed. Any signs would need to be reviewed in
25 compliance with the Chapman University Specific Plan. Regarding the proposed restoration of the
26 painted Sunkist sign, staff believed that could be an item that would come back to the Committee for
27 review if necessary at a later time.
28
29 Public Comments:
30
31 Chair Imboden opened the item to the Public for comments.
32
33 Jeff Frankel, Old Towne Preservation Association, said he had previously met with Chapman's team
34 on numerous occasions about the project. The association had supported the concept from the
35 beginning but many design issues had been mitigated. Frankel felt the building still had a large
36 presence on the corner,but the mass had been mitigated as much as it could be. He would still support
37 the project because the adaptive reuse of the Villa Park Orchard Packing House was kept relatively
38 intact and he felt the Chapman campus housing was very much needed. The Association had tried to
39 get more community members and groups involved to comment on the project but there was not a
40 huge turnout. Since this project would not be going to the Planning Commission, Frankel wondered
41 how the parking would be monitored to ensure students not park on the streets in the nearby
taff Re ort about information regarding the
munit
. Frankel also re uested clarification on the S p
i
42 com y q
� 43 relocation and storage of the two accessory buildings as he was unsure what that meant. Other than
; 44 reducing the size of the building further, Frankel felt the project was in the best state it could be.
�I 45
i 46 Chair Imboden noted for the record that the city received correspondence from two individuals as part
�I 47 of the Staff Report and the city responded to those electronically on July 3, 2017.
4 � ° ��
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for July 5, 2017
Page 9 of 14
1
2 Chair Imboden responded to the public comments by informing the public that the concerns with
3 regards to parking should be brought up with the Community Development Director and were not part
4 of the Committee's purview. Chair Imboden also responded to the concerns that the two buildings
5 would be put into storage by clarifying that they would be initially used for storage and were not being
6 put into storage themselves. Finally, Chair Imboden asked the Applicant and staff to respond to the
7 concern for the size of the building and explain why the project had residential suites instead of
8 traditional dorms, because the building might seem larger than necessary to some due to the extra
9 square footage that those style of rooms required.
10
11 Staff elaborated on the size of the building by explaining that the zoning as presented in the Chapman
12 University Specific Plan allows for multi-family residential uses but not dorms. The applicant wanted
13 to be sure to comply with the standards set and therefore were offering a multi-family project as
14 opposed to dorms, which are only permitted in the Residential "R" zone of the Chapman University
15 Specific Plan. The Applicant added that the University also wanted to offer suites as a means of
16 providing amenities that would attract and retain older students in University housing.
17
18 Chair Imboden opened the item to the Committee for discussion.
19
20 The DRC had the following comments:
21 • It was inquired if there was a sample of the cor-ten weathering steel.
22 • The rendering appeared to show the color of the packing house to be a little more yellow than
23 beige.
24 • The Committee was pleased with the brick as a corner treatment and believed it improved the
25 overall building by bringing the human scale element down to the street level which helped
26 to anchor each corner.
27 • On page 71 of the Initial Study, it said"the proposed new building third story would be set
28 back on the east and south facades, visually reducing the building's overall height and mass"
29 but that statement should have said fourth story.
30 • Although there were concerns from both the community and the committee about the size,
31 bulk, and mass of the building,the project seemed to improve immensely since it started to
32 address these concerns.
33 • The table of contents did not align properly with the page numbers in the Initial Study and
34 needs to be updated.
35 • On pages 15 — 16 of the Initial Study regarding aesthetics, it mentioned the shade and
36 shadow study which was supplemented with more information in a letter from staff. The
37 Committee noted that a public comment raised concern over the shadowing of a few adjacent
38 residential structures and the staff responded to the letter but the Committee requested
39 clarification as to what the response meant.
40 o The Committee encouraged staff to clarify in the Initial Study how many hours are
41 deemed a significant impact of shade before the document went before the
42 Community Development Director.
43 • In the Initial Study under"cultural resources" on page 48, next to "causing a substantial
44 adverse change in the significance of historical resources defined" it was checked as a less
45 than significant impact. It seemed like there was existing mitigation measures and project
46 design features that would be applied such as the interpretive component and nominating the
4� resources collectively, so it appeared the box checked"less than significant with existing
4g mitigations incorporated"would have been more appropriate.
I� . �r .�
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for July 5, 2017
Page 10 of 14
� 1 • Clarification was requested as to where the "interpretive component" noted by the applicant
2 was going to be.
3 • Clarification was requested that the exposed shoring on the Packing House was going to
4 remain permanently and would be kept in place and used structurally.
5 • With regard to the metal fencing at the Packing House, the Committee questioned how the
6 design was chosen and inquired if it matched something inside of the building.
. .._ _ _.,.. .. 7 • The Committee asked what type of finish or accent color the A04 poured in place concrete
g seat wall would have.
9 . The plans for the Packing House rehabilitation still seemed to lack detail. The effort with the
10 rail spur was appreciated and the material used worked well. The focus was previously on the
11 housing and while the Packing House seemed to be going in the right direction,the
12 Committee could not be certain because there was not enough clear information. There were
13 no objections to what was being seen but there was not enough information in the plans for
14 the Committee to be comfortable giving an approval.
15 • Clarification was requested on the illustrations because the design for the top of the rail
16 looked different at the front of the building than in the back. In the rendering it showed a
1'7 double rail on the top.
1 g . The Committee was not in support of approving the building and then going back to approve
19 the signs later. They preferred it come back as one package.
20 • Clarification was requested regarding the concrete joint and finish for the hardscape on the
21 site. It was recommended that the joints and finish coordinate with the city sidewalks but the
22 color could be slightly different. The Community Development Director stated that he would
23 discuss with the Public Works Director whether the finish on the City sidewalk could be
24 adjusted to match.
25 • The sustainability of the Furcraea plant in the plaza planting plan was a concern because it
26 can get fairly large and the shady location did not seem ideal.
27 . The palm placement reflected two types of palms but the lighting plan reflected three types
28 of palm lightings. The AA2 palm tree accent lights were approved of but the UU4lights
29 should perhaps be moved to avoid being so close to the bikes to prevent damage and
i, 19 ��,�, 30 suggested the ground mounted UU1 instead as another option.
31 • There was a lot of Mexican feather grass which should be replaced with a non-invasive plant
32 species.
33 • The dragon tree was seen on the palette but clarification was requested as to where it would
34 grow.
k of the ro ert b the railroad was questioned as to
. chain link fence alon the bac p p y Y , ,
35 The g
36
whether it was allowed. Chain link an
d tubular steel were discussed. A black vinyl chain link
� fence was referred to the tubular steel.
3 P
3 g • The lighting of the Packing House was requested to be clarified. There were linear LED
39 lights intermittently spaced along the south fa�ade but it was unclear if they were mounted or
' en and if the were oin anywhere else on the building.
40 h�dd y g g
41 • Conduits generally were not allowed to be run on the exterior for lighting, and the Committee
42 would need to see the details on the building.
I'i . s ur and treatment were not addressed enough. The Committee requested to see what it
i 43 The p
� 44 would look like on a larger scale as the proposed plans were too small to see any detail.
� 45 . The Committee wanted to see larger colored renderings and wanted the mock track to have
� 4C been expressed more strongly. A metal edged gravel walkway did not appear to adequately
I 47 reference railroad tracks.
48
� .��� �� � .:
€�
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for July 5, 2017
Page 11 of 14
1 Committee Member Fox made a motion to recommend approval of DRC No. 4900-17, Villa Park
2 Orchards Association Packing House and West Residential Village, to the Community Development
3 Director, based on the findings and conditions listed in the Staff Report, and with the following
4 conditions:
5
6 1. The landscape plan come back to this body, prior to issuance of a building permit, with
7 more detailed information, slightly enlarged special areas, including material samples and
8 details for lighting, and incorporate the comments that were made in the review session
9 today with regards to finishing and colors. Also,that there is an alternative to the Mexican
10 feather grass that is called out in the plan,and included in the landscape plan is more detail
11 on the historical monument.
._ , �_,_ . 12
13 2. The design of the Packing House returns to this Committee with more detail on the railing,
14 how the lighting is mounted on the exterior of the building, color and material samples,
15 and signage and public art that is related to the historic Packing House. The Packing House
16 detailing will need to come back to the Committee prior to issuance of the building permit
17 for the Packing House portion of the project.
18
19 And with the additional recommendations:
20
21 1. Corrections be made to the Initial Study based on the comments made during this review.
22
23 SECOND: Tim McCormack
24 AYES: Robert Imboden, Carol Fox, Tim McCormack and Anne McDermott
25 NOES: None
26 ABSENT: None
2� MOTION CARRIED
28
29
�
�.
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for July 5, 2017
Page 12 of 14
� 1 (5) Design Review No. 4984-16, Unity Middle College High School
2
3 • A proposal to establish a new charter high school at an existing church site, including
4 installation of new modular classroom buildings, landscaping, and parking lot modifications.
5 • 1310 E. Lincoln Avenue
6 • Staff Contact: Kelly Ribuffo, (714)744-7223, kribuffo@cityoforange.org
� ,� �,,,.,, , 7 • DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission
8
9
10 Kelly Ribuffo, Associate Planner, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report.
11
12 The applicants who were present for this project were Erin Craig and Lori Trottier.
13
14 Public Comments:
15
16 Chair Imboden inquired with staff about the comment made in the staff report about landscaping not
17 being done in a conventional manner because it will be located in an existing parking lot.He requested
18 clarification from staff on the justification for this determination.
19
20 Committee Member Fox asked staff if the school was temporary and if the applicant left after two
21 years, could the church keep these temporary structures or have the paxking lot restored.
22
23 Staff noted that they are reviewing the request for a Conditional Use Permit as a permanent project
24 whether the applicant intends to be there longer or not because the CUP approval runs with the land.
25
26 Chair Imboden opened the item to the Public for comments.
27
28 Wyatt Prichard, from the PRES companies which is the office condo building to the west, stated that
29 he only had a site map as reference to the project and did not yet know things such as what the color
30 of the building was, who would maintain the landscaping, and felt there was a lot of missing
31 information. As of late last week, the tenants and owners of the office condos had no idea about the
32 proposed buildings and their aesthetics.
33
�I f',�I!, 34 Chair Imboden opened the item to the Committee for discussion.
35
36 The DRC had the following comments:
• mtobea
3� . The extensive landscape along the street was appreciated, and there did not see
3g negative impact on the other side of Lincoln, which faces the proposed landscaping. The
39 landscaping concerns were with regards to the lack of landscaping around the buildings
40 themselves. The Committee assumed the rest of the surface surrounding the buildings would
more landsca in an
d to kee in mind how it would appear
nded , P
41 be asphalt,but still recomme p g
i 42 from the adjacent office building.
j 43 • The proposed building colors were too prominent for the project, and the portables would have
44 less impact if they were more neutrally colored.
45 • The Committee felt they had not been shown, either via drawings or verbal descriptions, how
. wer value
� munit aesthetics since the ortables would be seen as a lo
�, 46 the pro�ect upheld the com y , P
•. _
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for July 5,2017
Page 13 of 14
� 1 building type. The Committee also did not see any relationship between the color palette or
2 landscape treatment that reinforced what was seen onsite or in the community.
3 • The Committee acknowledged the proposed use is noble and the service would be a great asset
4 for the community. However, if the church decided to maintain the buildings it could
5 potentially have a long term existence once the school vacated the property.
6 • When looking at landscape, it was noted that if the buildings were only in place for two years
7 then it would take about that long for the plants to grow to screen them.
8 • With regards to the landscaping on the slope, it was recommended that the landscaping should
9 be placed at the top of the slope to maximize screening.
10 • The Committee suggested the a/c compressors should be screened.
11 • Although screening was required by the General Plan, it was the job of the DRC to see if there
12 was also an integrated design theme for the property. The only thing that seemed to make this
��� ° ° -- 13 possible was to have the buildings hidden with screening, even though that was not a code
14 requirement. A mixture of planters with a green screen was suggested as a screening solution
15 for the portables because then the applicant could also take those with her when she moved the
16 buildings.
17 • The Committee commented that the ramps did not appear to be long enough per ADA
18 compliance and suggested the applicant correct this.
19 • The Committee expressed concern that the church was not as involved with the planning of
20 this project, since it was their property.
21
22 Committee Member Fox made a motion to approve DRC No. 4984-16, Unity Middle College High
23 School, to the Planning Commission based on the findings and conditions listed in the Staff Report,
24 and with the following conditions:
25
26 1. The paint colors return to this committee for painting the structures,a landscaping plan returns
27 to this committee to be able to review the screening of parts of the project with vines, and that
28 the committee could make a finding of an integrated design theme for the property and that
29 those would be done prior to issuance of the building permit.
30
31 There was no second on the motion.
32
33 Committee Member Imboden made a motion to recommend denial of DRC No. 4984-16, Unity
34 Middle College High School, to the Planning Commission on the basis that the Committee is unable
35 to make the required findings, specifically in that the project design upholds the community aesthetics
36 and that it uses an internally consistent integrated design scheme, and is also unable to find that it is
37 consistent with all adopted specific plans, applicable design standards, nor their required findings in
38 that the proposed project is dissimilar and incompatible with nearby architectural quality, style, and
39 color and lacks required screening of the building, the building's mechanical equipment, and
� 40 landscape.
41
42
' 43 SECOND: Anne McDermott
44 AYES: Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack and Anne McDermott
45 NOES: Carol Fox
46 ABSENT: None
4� MOTION CARRIED
48
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for July 5, 2017
Page 14 of 14
� 1 ADJOURNMENT:
2
3 Committee Member McDermott made a motion to adjourn to the next regularly scheduled Design
4 Review Committee meeting on July 19, 2017.
5
6 SECOND: Tim McCormack
7 AYES: Robert Imboden, Carol Fox, Tim McCormack and Anne McDermott
8 NOES: None
9 ABSENT: None
10
-� ��`��� ��� � � 11 MOTION CARRIED.
12
13 Meeting adjourned at 9:42 p.m.
14
�
� ��