2018-06-20 DRC Final Minutes CITY OF ORANGE
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
MINUTES - FINAL
June 20, 2018
Committee Members Present: Tim McCormack - Chair
Anne McDermott—Vice Chair
Robert Imboden
Carol Fox
Committee Members Absent: Mary Anne Skorpanich
Staff in Attendance: Bill Crouch, Community Development Director
Anna Pehoushek, Assistant Community Development Director
Marissa Moshier, Historic Preservation Planner
Kelly Ribuffo, Associate Planner
Simonne Fannin, Recording Secretary
Administrative Session —5:00
Chair McCormack opened the Administrative Session at 5:10 p.m. and inquired about the
Policy/Procedural Information.
Marissa Moshier, Historic Preservation Planner stated there were no changes to the agenda.
The meeting on July 4 has been canceled and the next scheduled meeting will be July 18.
Committee Member Imboden discussed a meeting he attended with staff from Community
Development and Public Works and other community members on the City's Street Tree Master
Plan. He pointed out the list of heritage trees is out of date, the proposed tree list for Old Towne
lacked species of mature trees that are common and appropriate for the historic district, and the
use of Liquidambar trees in the Eichler tracts.
Bill Crouch, Community Development Director provided an update of his meeting with the City
Manager regarding future meetings between staff, the community and representatives from the
DRC for the Street Tree Master Plan.
Committee Members provided edits to the June 6, 2018 meeting minutes.
Committee Member Fox made a motion to close the Administrative Session of the Design Review
Committee meeting.
SECOND: McDermott
AYES: McCormack, Imboden, McDermott, and Fox
NOES: None
ABSENT: Skorpanich
MOTION CARRIED.
Administrative Session adjourned at 5:26 p.m
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for June 20, 2018
Page 2 of 9
Regular Session—5:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Committee Members McCormack, Imboden, McDermott and Fox were present.
Committee Member Skorpanich was absent
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: JIJNE 6, 2018.
Committee Member Fox made a motion to approve the minutes from the Design Review
Committee meeting of June 6, 2018 as emended in the Administrative Session.
SECOND: McDermott
AYES: Imboden, Fox and McDermott
NOES: None
ABSENT : Skorpanich
ABSTAIN: McCormack
MOTION CARRIED.
2
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for June 20, 2018
Page 3 of 9
AGENDA ITEMS:
Continued Items:
(2) DESIGN REVIEW NO. 4936-18 ROHM RESIDENCE
• A proposal to construct a 499 SF addition to an existing single family residence, and to
construct a 335 SF addition to an existing detached garage for additional parking space and
a non-habitable workshop. The property is a contributing resource to the Old Towne National
Historic District.
• 181 N. Pine Street
• Staff Contact: Kelly Ribuffo, 714-744-7223, kribuffo@cityoforange.org
• DRC Action: Final Determination
Committee Member Fox recused herself from this item due to the fact that her firm is involved
with the project and left the room.
Kelly Ribuffo, Associate Planner provided an overview of the project consistent with the staff
report and pointed out several changes that the applicant made on the plans per the Design Review
Committee's comments. Staff is recommending approval of the project.
Rick Fox, architect for the project pointed out how the footprint was modified to address the
concerns of the Committee.
Chair McCormack opened the public comment portion of the meeting; there were no speakers.
The DRC had the following comments:
• The Committee felt the design of the garage has improved; spacing concerns between the
garage and the house were addressed.
• The prior roof design is preferred. The new gable design is unnecessarily complicated and
does not come together in an aesthetically pleasing way.
• The rear patio has a house roof, but is at grade, rather than a raised porch to match the
raised foundation of the house. The house already has a language of raised patios and
pergolas and if that approach could continue for the covered patio at the rear, it would be
more successful and compatible.
• The Committee questioned if the addition is meant to match the house or stand away from
the house?
• The project looks like it was squeezed into a different shape and retained everything that
was there before.
• The Committee is challenged as to whether or not the project is internally consistent and
compatible with the neighborhood.
• The visual weight of the gable at the end of the porch is too heavy for the spindly columns
it is resting on. Visually, it does not look proportional.
3
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for June 20, 2018
Page 4 of 9
• Removing the raised deck warrants a different roof type and not just an extrusion of the
heavy roof form.
• The gable roof could possibly be mitigated by detaching it and make it a standalone
structure such as a gazebo or a California garden room which could be treated as a garden
element.
Rick Fox, architect stated the intent was to retain as much of the existing gable construction on the
rear of the house. The formation of the footprint occurred because of the Committee's concerns
about the integrity of the tree.
The roof shape has been proposed because the cross gable on the previous submittal didn't work
well with the revision to the footprint. They lowered the patio in order to get a brick surface at
grade in response to concerns about impervious materials. They are willing to work with staff to
revise the plan.
Bill Crouch,Community Development Director suggested the DRC could approve the project with
an added condition of approval to form an Ad Hoc Sub-Committee of the DRC to work out a
solution to address the Committee's concerns. If the Director, sub-committee and applicant revise
the design and decide that it does not meet the conditions of approval, then it can return to the
Design Review Committee.
Mr. Fox agreed to work with the Committee and return with a revised design in July.
Committee Member Imboden made a motion to approve DRC No. 4936-18 - Rohm Residence,
finding the project consistent with the staff report findings and conditions and including an
additional condition:
• The applicant shall meet with a sub-committee consisting of DRC Members Imboden and
McDermott and staff, as approved by the Chair, to review modifications to the covered
porch proposed at the rear of the property on or shortly after July 12. Should the sub-
committee not be able to make the required findings for compatibility of the revised porch,
the project will be agendized and returned to DRC for further review.
SECOND: McDermott
AYES: McCormack, Imboden and McDermott
NOES: None
RECUSED: Fox
ABSENT: Skorpanich
MOTION CARRIED.
4
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for June 20, 2018
Page 5 of 9
New A�enda Items:
(3) DESIGN REVIEW NO. 4935-18, MINOR SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 0935-18, AND
ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 0260-18 —TELEHEALTH FOUNDATION
• A proposal to convert an existing residential/office property to medical offices and one
apartment unit. The project includes rehabilitation of the historic buildings at 811 E. Chapman
Avenue and 127 N. Pine Street, construction of a 668 square foot addition to the building at
815 E. Chapman Avenue, construction of a surface parking lot, landscape improvements, and
relocation of a historic accessory structure 11 feet to the west on the same property. The
project includes requests for Administrative Adjustments for required number of parking
spaces, required drive aisle and parking space dimensions, required landscape area around
parking lots, and required loading zones for commercial properties in order to allow the
conversion to medical office.
• 811-815 E. Chapman Avenue, 127 N. Pine Street
• Staff Contact: Marissa Moshier, 714-744-7243. mmoshier@cityoforange.org
• DRC Action: Final Determination
Marissa Moshier, Historic Preservation Planner provided an overview of project consistent with
the staff report. She stated a comment letter from Gloria Boice, a neighbor to the north who shares
the alley with this property, was received that afternoon and was submitted to the Committee for
review.
Dr. Henderson approached and stated services for the elderly population, cancer care, and
dementia will be provided at this location.
Doug Ely, architect for the project stated they are rehabilitating and restoring the historic
structures. He added the landscape was designed to create a nurturing and healing environment
with a meditation garden, water elements and drought tolerant plants.
In terms of the style, they specifically chose not to replicate a Spanish colonial style and selected
a Mediterranean-style in order to keep the existing roof form for the non-contributing building.
Chair McCormack opened the public comment portion of the meeting; there were no speakers.
Committee comments and questions:
• The Committee asked if the existing windows on the larger building(811 E. Chapman)are
historic and what is the proposed treatment and what kind of windows are on the smaller
building (127 N Pine). Mr. Ely stated the second story windows are not original windows
and it is not their intent to replace them. The lower floor windows are original and double
hung.
• The Committee reviewed Mrs. Boice's letter and found the comments are primarily issues
between neighbors, which the applicant should respond to directly with Mrs. Boice.
• The Committee asked if any consideration was given to rotating accessory building C in
order to create additional parking and avoid an administrative adjustment. Mr. Ely stated
they worked with city staff about that option, but it caused greater change to the site.
5
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for June 20, 20l 8
Page 6 of 9
• The Committee verified that the aluminum clad door on accessory building C on the
drawing will be replaced.
• The Committee member verified that the wall air-conditioning units will be removed. Mr.
Ely stated there is a new system that is being installed and all of the old units will be
removed.
• The Committee Member asked if there is a reason for two different parapet heights for the
addition at 815 Chapman. Mr. Ely stated the parapet in the rear is taller because they need
to screen mechanical equipment.
• The Committee stated they did not have any comments regarding 127 N. Pine Street.
Accessory Buildings A/B comments and questions:
• A Committee Member asked if it is reasonable to condition that the two enclosed parking
spaces remain reserved for that use and not become storage. Ms. Mosher stated the Zoning
Administrator's recommendation on the Administrative Adjustments included conditions
to have automatic openers for the garage door and that the garages shall remain entirely for
parking and not used for storage.
• The Committee pointed out that planters block the man door on the garage. The Committee
discussed the inconvenience of the pedestrian path from the garage to the residents of the
apartment unit at 811 E. Chapman and asked the applicant to provide options for a more
direct path to the residence in order to avoid walking next to a busy intersection to get to
the unit. Mr. Ely stated they will provide a walkway,possibly with stepping stones, on site
for a more direct path.
811 E. Chapman comments and questions:
• Committee Members inquired about the changes at the second floor closet. Mr. Ely stated
it appears that this area may have been a porch that was enclosed over time with plywood.
They plan to remove the plywood and finish with plaster to match the original building.
The Committee and Mr. Ely discussed the proposal for the roof overhang at this area. The
drawing detail on Sheet 3.1 is incorrect and the Committee clarified that the overhang will
be removed and replaced with a parapet and trim to match the rest of the building. The
Committee agreed to include a condition of approval describing the correct roof
configuration.
• The Committee agreed they do not want additional scuppers on the roo£ Mr. Ely stated if
they need to add more scuppers, they will bring it to staff for determination.
815 E. Chapman comments and questions:
• The east and west elevations for the building are missing.
• The parapet heights are not clear on the additions, and the Committee expressed concern
about the height of the parapet on the east side.
• The Committee and Mr. Ely discussed the height of the parapet and roof. Mr. Ely described
that the taller parapet is intended to screen mechanical equipment on the roof. To eliminate
the higher parapet, the Committee recommended that the air conditioner should not be
placed on the roof; it compromises the aesthetics of the building.
• The gable entrance to the north from the parking lot matches the gable parch on the front;
a simpler parapet might be more appropriate for a secondary elevation.
6
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for June 20, 20l 8
Page 7 of 9
• The design for the addition does not exhibit a hierarchy in relation to the existing building,
especially where the massing gets taller at the edges of the building. Part of the design
references Spanish Colonial Revival and the other part Prairie, without a system of
responding to each other.
• The Committee agreed that the parapet could be lower;Mr. Ely stated they thought of other options
and he provided a rendering of another option which showed larger massing at the center of the
building stepping down in height toward the edges. The Committee preferred the massing of this
option.
General Committee comments and concerns:
• The Committee discussed their concerns about the three feet of backup space for parking
space 14 and agreed landscaping should be placed along the 815 E. Chapman building in
order to avoid backing up into the building.
• Committee Members stated the landscape plan is not specific enough. The plants that have
been chosen will change in 3 to 5 years and should be selected so that they will not be
trimmed into hedges. The landscape could be simplified to give homage to the architecture.
• The Committee discussed their preference for the types of shrubs that should be planted.
• The Committee discussed shade trees in the parking lot area. Mr. Ely stated the Doctor
wanted to paint murals on the walls and wants to keep it open. The Committee
recommended Platanus acerifolia `Columbia' trees which will provide shading and still
allow a view of the wall. The Committee agreed three trees, approximately 27 feet apart
would be acceptable.
• The Committee Members stated they should consider placing a historic tree on the site to
set the character.
• The Committee agreed all of the requests for administrative adjustments were appropriate.
In response to a question about proceeding with the motion, Ms. Moshier suggested that the
Committee could approve the project and condition that the elevations for the 815 E. Chapman
Building and the landscape plan return to the Committee prior to submittal for a building permit.
Committee Member Fox made a motion to approve Design Review No. 4935-18, Minor Site Plan
Review No. 0935-18, and Administrative Adjustment No. 0260-18—TeleHealth Foundation with
the following conditions:
• Keynote number five regarding the aluminum door on sheet A5.1 shall be corrected to read
that it will be replaced.
• On Sheet A2.5, the air-conditioners shall be removed from the accessory building.
• Sheet 1 shall include an on-site path from the garage (Accessory Building A/B)to the front
door of the residential unit at 811 E. Chapman Avenue.
• The drawings shall be clarified on the 811 E. Chapman Avenue Building, and the existing
non-historic overhang at the second story closet shall be removed and replaced with a
parapet and trim to match the existing parapet.
• The historic wood screens shall be refurbished and retained on Building 127.
• All of the elevations for the 815 E. Chapman Avenue Building shall return to the
Committee prior to building permit submittal.
7
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for June 20, 20]8
Page 8 of 9
• The landscape plan shall return to the Committee priar to building permit submittal.
• The applicant shall review options to remove the 3-foot back up space adjacent to parking
space number 14 and continue the curb straight back to the no parking area. The area
created by removing the back up space adjacent to the wall of the 815 E. Chapman building
shall be landscaped.
• The landscape plan shall indicate final plant materials,especially for areas that will contain
shrubs.
• The applicant shall consider reducing the number of trees along the east wall of the parking
area and replacing them with larger shade trees in diamond cut outs into the parking spaces
to maximize access to water.
• Planting shall be added in front of trash area on N. Pine Street.
SECOND: Imboden
AYES: Imboden, McCormack, Fox and McDermott
NOES: None
ABSENT: Skorpanich
MOTION CARRIED.
8
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for June 20, 2018
Page 9 of 9
ADJOURNMENT:
Committee Member McDermott made a motion to adjourn at 8:30 p.m. The next regular meeting
is scheduled on Wednesday, July 18, 2018, at 5:00 p.m.
SECOND: Imboden
AYES: Imboden, Fox, McCormack and McDermott
NOES: None
ABSENT: Skorpanich
MOTION CARRIED.
Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
Adjourned to the next regular meeting on Wednesday, July 18, 2018
9