08-15-2007 DRC MinutesCITY OF ORANGE
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
MINUTES -FINAL
15 August 2007
Committee Members Present: Jon Califf
Bill Cathcart
Donnie DeWees
Craig Wheeler
Committee Members Absent: Joe Woollett
Staff in Attendance: Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager
Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney
Howard Morris, Sr. Landscape/
Assessment District Coordinator
Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner
Doris Nguyen, Associate Planner
Diane Perry, Recording Secretary
Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary
Administrative Session - 5:00 P.M.
The Committee met for an administrative session beginning at 5:00 p.m.
Regular Session - 5:30 P.M.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 6:34 p.m. to the next regular meeting on Wednesday,
September 5, 2007.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for 15 August 2007
Page 2 of 12
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Opportunity for members of the public to address the Design Review Committee on
matters not listed on the Agenda.
No public attendees addressed the Design Review Committee on matters not listed on the
Agenda.
REVIEW OF MINUTES:
June 20, 2007
Chair Wheeler stated the minutes had been reviewed during the Administrative Session.
A motion was made by Committee Member DeWees to approve the minutes of the June 20,
2007 meeting with revisions as noted.
SECOND: Craig Wheeler
AYES: Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart
ABSENT: Joe Woollett
MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT ITEMS:
All matters that are announced as Consent Items are considered to be routine by the
Design Review Committee and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate
discussion of said items unless members of the Design Review Committee, staff or the
public request specific items to be removed from the Consent Items for separate action.
There were no items moved to consent at this meeting.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for 15 August 2007
Page 3 of 12
AGENDA ITEMS:
DRC No. 4272-07 -MAIN LIBRARY HARDSCAPE AND PERIMETER WALL
PROPOSALS
A proposal to modify a hardscape feature and perimeter wall at the Main Library.
407 E. Chapman Avenue
Staff Contact: Nora Jacob, 714-288-2474, njacob@cityoforange.org
DRC Action: Final Determination
The applicant, Main Library Director Nora Jacob, stated that she was addressing the Committee
on two changes she would like to ask for now that the library is open and people are using it. The
first change is raising the block wall to 5' between the library and the immediate neighbor on the
northeast on Center Street, since people are coming over the wall with abandon and sitting on it.
The property owner had actually asked the City to do this approximately three years ago,
anticipating that this would be the issue.
The other change is to do something about the rocks that go around the west half of the building
from just outside the front Chapman Avenue door to the parking lot entry door. People walking
past the historic fountain are hanging around the fountain, enjoying the historic fountain and
picking up the rocks to toss into the fountain. Unfortunately, the weight and mass compared to
even an American Quarter is significant. There are five to six dozen significant dings in the
finish of the fountain already. The Save the Fountain people are understandably unhappy with
this. She stated they are trying to reeducate the public, but they are getting 15,000 to 20,000
people a week through the building.
Instead of having the rocks loose, Ms. Jacob proposes to mortar them in, basically on edge. Ms.
Jacob gave an example with the rocks she had brought to the meeting. She indicated they are
also adding some more safety bars, some more bike racks, a couple more benches, and the block
wall Ms. Jacob brought Contractor Mr. McCormick's drawings to share with the Committee.
The rocks would be mortared from in front of the Chapman Avenue side all the way around the
west side. Mr. McCormick spoke to three concrete and rock specialists to put the plan together.
Ms. Jacob offered to give further information if needed.
Public Comment
Janet Crenshaw, OTPA, address on file, came forward and stated that she is upset about what is
happening to the fountain. She questioned if the chains would be coming off of the birds or if
that was going to be a permanent fixture.
Ms. Jacob answered that the chains were put on the fountain without their knowledge. This was
in the transition between the Save the Fountain Committee and a contract being put into place to
maintain the fountain structure. Someone, when the water was off, hung from one of the birds
and broke it off.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for 15 August 2007
Page 4 of 12
Chair Wheeler asks if there was any further public comment. There was none. The meeting was
opened to Committee discussion.
Committee Member Califf stated that he has seen that treatment in a number of places and it is
quite attractive and a good solution.
Committee Member Cathcart asks if the area around the building is part of the Water Quality
Management plan issue? Meaning that there has to be so much permeability around the building
for drainage, they can't have any water leaving the site going into the culverts to the ocean. Ms.
Jacob stated that this is addressed in the plan.
Committee Member DeWees asks (referring to the drawing) if other areas will be the same way?
Ms. Jacob stated yes, for the four pots with the trees and there is a fifth pot with a tree by the
parking lot entrance. Beneath those there are rocks. Anything that has loose rocks will be set.
Chair Wheeler asks about the pots themselves, they have some rocks in them too? Ms. Jacob
responds that they will take them out and mulch.
Chair Wheeler has a concern with the wall and wants to make sure it matches what is already
there. Committee Member DeWees asks if the scored border will be pulled off and the wall will
just be added to, with the scored border placed back on top? Ms. Jacob states that makes sense.
Committee Member DeWees asks if they looked at any other ways of altering the wall to
discourage people from sitting on it. There are some t-shaped brackets that come up that could
come over the top of the wall. Ms. Jacob responded that what Mr. McCormick proposed is a
sloped cap. However, birds can sit on a sloped cap even if people can't. Chair Wheeler would
like to know if the neighbor wants more privacy in addition to deferring people from sitting on
the wall? Ms. Jacob states as much privacy as we are able to design for her.
Committee Member DeWees clarifies not to just raise the wall but to come up with something to
make people avoid it? Ms. Jacob responds yes. Committee Member DeWees notes that the
foundation appears smaller - is it big enough fora 5' wall or will the whole wall be taken down.
Ms. Jacob responds that she does not know, as they are not that far along. If that is what it takes
is to take the whole wall down and put up a new one that is what will be done. There are three
neighbors who have experienced a great deal while the library was being constructed and this is
one of them. It is the City's moral obligation to do this right.
Committee Member Califf asks are the additional benches that you are talking about, are they to
provide adequate seating. Is the seating of people along the wall a by-product of loitering or a
by-product of the need for more seating outside the library?
Ms. Jacob states that it is a by-product of loitering in that particular location. We are adding the
benches at the back of the library. Our experience is that people using the handicapped spaces
do not realize how close they are to the front door. They make their trek to the back door and by
the time they come into the library, they are aching and upset, for having to walk so far. They
actually like going by the fountain, but are asking for places to rest along the way. Parents with
children may also sit there.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for 15 August 2007
Page 5 of 12
Chair Wheeler is confused by the Staff Report as it appears they've highlighted The Children's
Garden by mistake. Ms. Jacob agrees. Chair Wheeler states that he asked a librarian about it and
she mentioned that there are several problems with The Children's Garden and wonders if there
are any suggestions the Committee would like to offer for The Children's Garden.
Chair Wheeler suggests that you might open it up to the public as a quiet reading garden. It
would be a place on a nice day to sit outside and read. Ms. Jacob states that they will be opening
it to parents and children. The library has a whole policy on how it will be used. There are a
couple of benches out there. She stated they want to make sure once you walk out there that you
are safe.
Committee Member DeWees made a motion to approve DRC No. 4272-07 -Main Library
Hardscape and perimeter wall proposals, subject to the conditions in the Staff Report.
SECOND: Craig Wheeler
AYES: Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Joe Woollett
MOTION CARRIED.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for 15 August 2007
Page 6 of 12
2. DRC No. 4008-OS - TUSKATELLA CENTER
A proposal to modify previously approved plans for the exterior facade remodel
continued from August 1, 2007 meeting).
1301 E. Katella Avenue
Staff Contact: Chad Ortlieb, 714-744-7237, cortlieb(a,cityoforange.org
DRC Action: Final Determination
Senior Planner, Chad Ortlieb, gave an overview of the project consistent with the Staff Report
and the modifications made to the project. Mr. Ortlieb reviewed the changes made; which
include the new cornice, the stone features, the cornice height and one of the clocks on the tower
has been removed. There is also a color legend included in the plans.
Applicants Jill and Kevin Anderson introduced themselves. Mr. Anderson explained that the
stone feature that is on the drawing was taken off. However, the architect had put it back on in
error. Chair Wheeler asks if the applicant has anything further they would like to add?
Mr. Anderson explained that they did try to address everything from the last meeting. They
eliminated certain parts of the tower elements and some rock, changed the features, and
enhanced the column in the front.
Chair Wheeler thanked the applicant and asked for any public comment on this item. There was
none. The item was opened to the Committee for discussion.
Committee Member Cathcart stated that he likes the plan and that the applicant simplified a lot
of the material, and elements that were put there for no apparent reason. Committee Member
DeWees states that he is fine with the project.
Chair Wheeler adds that the only thing he would like to add is that in the areas where the stone
goes up there should be some horizontal molding. Mr. Anderson states that they talked about
this in the last meeting and although it's not visible on here, on the larger version there is a cut
off.
Chair Wheeler stated there seems to be a little bit of discrepancy on Building H between the
floor plan and the alterations. Committee Member Califf states that he has no issues.
Committee Member Califf made a motion to approve DRC No. 4008-OS - Tuskatella Center with
the noted modifications, revised documentation, and conditions contained in the Staff Report.
SECOND: Donnie DeWees
AYES: Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler
NOES: None
ABSENT: Joe Woollett
RECUSED: None
MOTION CARRIED.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for 15 August 2007
Page 7 of 12
3. DRC No. 4262-07 -JACOB RESIDENCE
A proposal to construct a 640 sq. ft. accessory secondary unit behind the primary
residence.
792 N. Grand Street
Staff Contact: Doris Nguyen, 714-744-7223, do uyen ,cityoforange.org
DRC Action: Final Determination
Associate Planner, Doris Nguyen, gave a project overview consistent with the Staff Report.
Chair Wheeler asked for any comments from the applicant.
Applicant Nora Jacob explained her reason to add another unit to her rental property was to
secure a future income for herself. She states that her primary request to Keith Messick,
Architect, was to add a unit with the most privacy possible from the main unit. That is the idea
on this proposal.
Chair Wheeler asks if there is any public comment on this item. There is none. The project is
opened to the Committee for discussion.
Committee Member DeWees opens with a question: Does the City let you have two drives on a
residential lot?
Mr. Messick responds, yes, with 20' clearance. Ms. Jacob adds that the block wall will be
coming down and wrought iron is going up. The reason is to give greater visibility for that
driveway, and for the existing driveway, as well as removing the two Cypress trees.
Committee Member Califf asks if the adjacent gate would be limited to 42". Ms. Nguyen
explained that it would not as this is on the side yard of the primary residence.
Chair Wheeler was concerned with the proposal for heating and cooling and the location of any
units. Mr. Messick states that the units would go in the wall, probably below the landing, and
shows the Committee the proposed location on the plans.
Committee Member Califf adds that typically the profile would be a little bit wider. Do you
have enough window and wall? The Committee reviews the plans and has questions
accordingly. Chair Wheeler states that his calculation came up with 654 square feet, rather than
the 639 from the drawings. Committee Member Califf states that he came up with 686, There is
discussion about whether the storage should be counted in the square footage measurement and it
is confirmed that it is if it is inside the house. Committee Member Califf explains that normally,
even if it is a closet which technically is inhabitable, you still count it. It is under the 2na floor
and it should be counted.
Ms. Jacob states that she could take that storage unit out and that she just put it there because she
thought it was not part of the square footage.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for 15 August 2007
Page 8 of 12
Committee Member DeWees clarifies that it is part of the footprint. Chair Wheeler, speaking to
Committee Member Califf, asks what he came up with as a total square footage? He states that
downstairs, not counting the stairs, he came up with 426 downstairs and 260 upstairs.
Chair Wheeler's measurement is identical, 686. This is 654, plus 33 counting the storage. He
adds that it would be best to check that and make sure it is under 640. There is another issue he
would like to address, one visual aesthetic item, which is the peak of the roof. This is a
neighborhood with all single-family homes. There are a few nearby that are two-story. Most of
the homes are one-story. He suggests trying to cut down the peak and the feeling of something
foreign going into that neighborhood. One way might be to change the ends of it. He refers to
the drawing and gives suggestions.
Mr. Messick responds that they did look at three to four different roofs, cutting it on different
plates. The plates are 8 and 8, which is about as compact as we can get it. He agrees it looks
kind of funny with the hip up there. It is more in style with the other roof styles in the
neighborhood. It is such a small hip in proportion to the size. This is why we chose the gable.
Ms. Nguyen explains that the only other two-story homes in that neighborhood do have hip roofs
referring to the drawings/photos, Ms. Nguyen shows the Committee the other location of the
two-story homes in this neighborhood). From Ms. Jacob's property you can see one of the two-
story properties.
Chair Wheeler responds that there is a similar form that he is suggesting here, again referring to
the drawings/photos. Committee Member Califf states that we need to find an internally
consistent design theme. That is the finding that he is struggling with. In and of itself it is quite
nice, but it is hard to make a finding when the window trim and other features actually have
nothing that is consistent with most of the neighborhood. He clarifies that he does not mean to
match other residences but to at least be consistent. Chair Wheeler adds that it is part of the Infil1
Design Guidelines.
Mr. Messick responds if you want to be just like the neighbors that he would need to take off the
trim and that would mean to go backwards.
Committee Member Califf states that most of the design issues we have is that people want to
make them too fancy. They want to make them too different than what is there. It is a fine line
between whether you are matching it or just using like materials and similar details. It just needs
to someway be consistent. This is different than matching.
Ms. Jacob wants further clarification and that she has followed the discussion so far, but it would
help as a layperson to get some examples of what the Committee is suggesting. She asks the
Committee to give her one or two examples.
Committee Member Califf responds that one example would be to choose aone-story scheme.
This would make it simpler to do a similar type of roof. Chair Wheeler was saying about the
roof is that there seems to be a predominant roof form in the neighborhood. Some
acknowledgement of that would be helpful. Ms. Jacob asks if we stayed two-story? Committee
Member Califf answers yes.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for 15 August 2007
Page 9 of 12
Committee Member DeWees has a concern of the mass issue. You have a high mass pushed so
far forward. Did you think at all about trying to keep the two-story portion towards the back?
You are so close to this two-story portion, you could still have the mass with carports. The top
portion could be moved and still have a hip roof. Mr. Messick states that they did consider this
as well. The idea was to push the mass towards the back of the lot, in contrast with the single-
story existing unit. Ms. Jacob added that they are looking at it from Lomita Avenue.
Chair Wheeler states that if it wasn't a corner lot that would make more sense. With the corner
lot you really have two backs. Mrs. Jacob asks for clarification on how the driveway would
work.
Committee Member DeWees explains that you would still have the driveway with the carport,
and there would be one level with your second story, which may affect your square footage.
Ms. Jacob answers that she likes the two-story. It is easier to rent a loft bedroom with a balcony
that is private from the main house. There is room for either aone-story or a two-story on the
property. The one story is a bigger footprint, and the remaining yard diminishes.
Committee Member DeWees states that typically with a corner lot you have more square footage
to your lot compared to the rest of them. He worries about if you sell the house to someone else
that they would make the carport into a bedroom. He is concerned that someone would put
something in long after Ms. Jacob is gone.
Ms. Jacob asks if that would be illegal on the face of it, because of the extra square footage?
That they would never come through you -that they would just build it?
Ms. Nguyen explains that it is very easy to construct something internally, without coming
through us. It is hard to catch. Committee Member DeWees states that it is unfortunate because
we are seeing more and more of it. We are limited in what we can and cannot do.
Ms. Jacob clarifies, so what you are saying is to reconfigure to one-story? Committee Member
DeWees responds yes, ideally. Ms. Nguyen adds that with aone-story there is a useable open
space requirement, if this goes to one-story it will not meet that. If you do not count the setbacks
the property is 1,027. If you count the setbacks it was 1,817. Planning Manager Leslie
Roseberry clarifies that it needs to be useable open space. If you are counting the side yard
setback of 5' it doesn't work. Ms. Nguyen continues that it was counted, as it is considered
useable (referring to the drawings). When I did count the set backs it was at 1,817.
Mr. Messick explains that with atwo-story design you have a place to park cars. This tucks the
cars inside under the structure. Committee Member Cathcart states that he would prefer to see a
two-story with more landscaping in the area. He also suggests that the irrigation system should
be updated with the additional landscaping. Ms. Jacob agrees, and states that atwo-story is still
her preference.
Chair Wheeler had a few things to add. The elevation does not show the storage area and the
columns seem to move about from one drawing to another. He also asks if any engineering has
been done. Mr. Messick states no, not until we find out if it will be one or two-story. Chair
Wheeler continues with his personal feeling is that he does not have a problem with atwo-story
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for 15 August 2007
Page 10 of 12
design as long it's handled well and it's compatible with the neighborhood. He also likes the
idea of putting the mass turned the other way, as Committee Member DeWees had suggested.
Ms. Jacob responds that interpreting in the simplest of terms, is to take what has been designed
and turn in 90 degrees? Chair Wheeler states that it would take a different design. The
Committee reviews the plans and gives suggestions to Ms. Jacob and Mr. Messick.
Committee Member Califf has questions on how the yards would be separated. Ms. Jacob
explains that there would not be a fence, but landscaping. Ms. Nguyen states that she also
supports that idea. Committee Member Califf agrees that would be fine, however, if a resident
has a dog or cat that they would want a fence to keep them in. He reviews the plans in regards to
the yard and mentions that all the windows open onto the yard space. Ms. Jacob explains that the
windows were designed with heavy-duty window coverings in mind. The light for the living
room comes in through the first story windows which would give enough light.
Committee Member DeWees suggests if things were moved around you might be able to work in
windows in the entry that face out towards Lomita and only have high windows on the other
side. Ms. Nguyen adds that there is also a garage that you would be looking out to from the
primary residence. Committee Member Califf, referring to the drawings, clarifies that if the yard
is counted towards the primary unit, you really have to dedicate it to the primary unit. Chair
Wheeler adds that the area is most of the open space that would be used for BBQ's, and the like
by the primary residence. Ms. Jacob explains that as a resident of this property for almost 30
years, the driveway was used, and a proposed fence would run along the driveway to Lomita.
Committee Member DeWees asks if the fence is part of the proposal? Ms. Jacob responds that it
is, and explains that the fence will run along the driveway. He comments that he would like to
see the fence pushed back 18" with more landscaping. The Committee discusses the idea of
pushing the fence back and giving a better streetscape with the added landscape. Ms. Jacob
states that they did drive around the Old Towne area and look at fence designs. Committee
Member Cathcart states that with the landscaping, you want to have plants that are bulletproof
and consistent and plants that do not require much pruning. Ms. Jacob is agreeable to the idea of
moving the fence back.
Ms. Jacob summarizes that the Committee is comfortable with atwo-story design if they swing
the mass around. Chair Wheeler suggests that they use a hip form for the upper roof. Committee
Member Califf adds that on the elevations you need to specify the material that is proposed for
the windows and the fascia.
Ms. Nguyen asks if the Committee would like the windows to match the existing house?
Committee Member DeWees states that he would like to see them relate more to the existing
house. He also feels that this type of home will be on the historic registry in the future. Chair
Wheeler adds that the recessed windows are unnecessary. Committee Member Califf adds that
the house has some interesting features with the stucco and porch area; it has character on its
own.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for 15 August 2007
Page 11 of 12
Ms. Nguyen, answering an earlier question, states that she shows the lot area as being 6,600 sq.
ft. The existing house, plus the proposed house, would be 1,998, which would be 30%.
Committee Member Califf explains that it should be listed in the plans. Committee Member
Cathcart adds that he would like to reiterate his suggestion to keep the landscape materials
simple and basic. Committee Member Califf continues that typically we require a note on the site
plan that states all the landscape areas will have automatic irrigation systems.
Committee Member DeWees made a motion to continue DRC No. 4262-07 Jacob Residence.
SECOND: Craig Wheeler
AYES: Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler
NOES: None
ABSENT Joe Woollett
RECUSED: None
MOTION CARRIED.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for 15 August 2007
Page 12 of 12
ADJOURNMENT:
A motion was made by Committee Member Cathcart to adjourn to the next regular meeting on
Wednesday, September 5, 2007.
SECOND: Craig Wheeler
AYES: Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler
NOES: None
ABSENT: Joe Woollett
RECUSED: None
MOTION CARRIED.