Loading...
12-06-2006 DRC MinutesCITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES -FINAL 6 December 2006 Committee Members Present: Jon Califf Bill Cathcart Donnie DeWees Craig Wheeler Committee Members Absent: Joe Woollett Staff in Attendance: Leslie Aranda-Roseberry, Planning Manager Daniel Ryan, Senior Planner Historic Preservation Sonal Thakur, Assistant Planner Howard Morris, Senior Landscape Coordinator Mari Burke, 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 7:54 p.m. to the next regular meeting on Wednesday, December 20, City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 6 December 2006 Page 2 of 15 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. 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. The following item was moved to consent: 7. DRC No. 4159-06 -CITRUS & CHAPMAN MEDICAL CENTER A proposal for a sign program for amedical/office center. 1031 West Chapman Avenue Staff Contact: Cathy Johnson, (714) 744-7225, cjohnson(cr~,cityoforan~e.org DRC Action: Final Determination A motion to approve this item by consent subject to the Staff recommendations was made by Craig Wheeler. No public comment was provided on this item. SECOND: Donnie DeWees 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 6 December 2006 Page 3 of 15 1. DRC No. 4068-06 - HUERTA RESIDENCE A proposal to construct a 1,419 sq. ft., two-story, second unit, and attached 331 sq. ft. garage, on a 7,500 sq. ft., R2-6 residential lot. 3022 E. Pearl Street Staff Contact: Dan Ryan, (714) 744-7224, Bryan@cityoforange.org DRC Continued Item from August 16, 2006 Meeting DRC Action: Final Determination Senior Planner Dan Ryan provided a project overview. The applicant was asked what changes they had made since the last meeting. The applicant's summary of changes included: 1) They added sprinklers around the house. 2) Landscaping was added. 3) The roof was lowered. 4) The entry was changed to be more visible. 5) A roof was put over the open area. 6) Some hardscape was added (the exact location was pinpointed for the committee). The applicant's architect added that to match the existing house was difficult due to its age; however, the siding now matches the front house and the fascia now matches the front house. No public comment was provided on this item. Committee Member Cathcart stated he didn't see much incorporation of the landscape recommendations made at the previous meeting. Specifically: 1) The applicant is still using the Buckeye Red, which is toxic and therefore not recommended. 2) The turf area is shown the same way it was even though there is a larger area on one side. 3) There is no foundation planting. The applicant's architect responded that if the overall concept is approved then plan check would uncover any discrepancies so as to eliminate going back/forth at this meeting due to a poisonous berry. Committee Member Cathcart responded that if they wanted to use the Buckeye Red, they would be entitled to do that; he just wanted to go on record stating it wasn't recommended, as it is toxic. Committee Member Cathcart reiterated the other specific requests made which included foundation planting so there is a separation between the turf and the building and the plant legend was to call out the quantities of plant materials. The architect responded that he put in a paver instead of a foundation plant and he didn't see the importance to provide the size of the City of Orange Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 6 December 2006 Page 4 of 15 plant material as again, a plan checker could validate what was done. Committee Member Cathcart responded stating that in order to approve the plans, the conditions would be listed and then it would be up to the City to ensure the plans were followed. One of the conditions would be that there is foundation planting (which he stated is a serious criteria for design) and another would be to specify the quantities of plant materials. Committee Member DeWees stated there are still a number of mistakes on the drawing package i.e. the roof plan is not shown correctly and the drawings are not to scale. Consequently, he couldn't support the drawing package. The applicant's architect stated it's not as though this is a commercial development, it's a modification to a residential structure. Chair Califf recalled that the idea was to diminish the apparent height and size of the addition and by uncovering the carport they could achieve the desired affect. Suggestions made by Chair Califf included use of a shed roof on the carport which would hide some of the mass of the tall wall and eliminate the water flow onto the wall; the carport could slide back to prevent interference of the roof with the open side of the balcony; the slope could potentially be adjusted to negate the window that might be necessary for egress. Chair Califf stated he was still a little troubled by the starkness of the rear elevation; however, he noted they had addressed the porch issue. He added that he was a little worried that the roof plate was lowered slightly and with 8 risers there would be insufficient clearance over the stairs. The applicant's architect interjected that he had already checked that. Committee Member Wheeler suggested to the applicant that they re-check it as according to his calculation he thought they would need about an ll' 8" plate, which is about 1'6" higher than what they have now. The applicant's architect interjected that once again, plan check would look at this and they had done it the way they had as the last time someone sketched it in that manner. Committee Member Cathcart stated that the reason for the foundation planting is it will also bring down the mass of the building as foundation planting offers a transition between the stark ground plane and the side of the house. The applicant's architect responded that most engineers don't like planting next to the foundation. Committee Member Wheeler stated he thought they made a lot of progress and that by going to a hip roof is lowering the scale. He agreed with Chair Califf that it would be better to do a simpler carport i.e. a simple shed off the building would eliminate a number of problems. He suggested a solid wall where the roof butts up against the railing. Chair Califf interjected they could also slide it back as there is enough depth in the plan. Chair Califf sketched where there was a shed roof how they could have a solid wall to replace a railing. Alternatives of shifting the carport back and slanting of the roofline were also sketched. Chair Califf stated they need to know a little more about the doors and windows i.e. will they be using a slider? The applicant's architect asked if a slider would be acceptable. Chair Califf responded affirmatively and Committee Member Wheeler added that it would need to meet the egress requirement. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 6 December 2006 Page 5 of 15 Chair Califf queried the committee if they would be amenable to approving this project with specific conditions that Mr. Ryan would have to check prior to it being accepted for plan check. Committee Member Wheeler indicated he would be in agreement with specific conditions and Committee Member Cathcart indicated Howard Morris, Senior Landscape Coordinator would check the landscaping. Committee Member DeWees stated he would not be able to approve it. Mr. Morris stated it would slow down the plan check process if he had to reject the plans for non-conformance. The applicant's architect responded they would do what the City required. Chair Califf made a motion to approve DRC No. 4068-06 with the following conditions: 1) Foundation planting is provided as previously described. 2) The open parking spaces be a minimum clear dimension of 10'x20'. 3) Regarding the building design: double check the roof height of the element that contains the stair and adjust if necessary. 4) Provide a shed roof which can be a lower pitch than the 4 and 12 over the carport and a roof be attached to the main building. 5) The condition on the roof may indicate that there would be a partial high solid wall on the side of the balcony in lieu of the open railing. 6) The drawings need to specify the type and the material of the doors and windows and whether they are sliding, horizontal or vertical sliders, or what function they are. 7) The dimensioning needs to be double-checked and the conformance between the plans and elevations -ensure the windows are all shown in the correct locations. 8) Spelling is corrected on the construction documents. 9) The quantities of plant materials need to be specified on the plans. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES:Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Craig Wheeler NOES:Donnie DeWees ABSTAIN:None ABSENT:Joe Woollett MOTION CARRIED. Chair Califf requested the applicant please work closely with Mr. Ryan to ensure they had a clear understanding of the conditions, as Mr. Ryan would not allow them to proceed to plan check without all items being addressed. 2. DRC No. 4092-06 -MINK RESIDENCE City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 6 December 2006 Page 6 of 15 A proposal to construct a 723 sq. ft. addition to a single-family residence and construction of a two-car garage. The proposal includes the demolition of an existing garage. 533 E. Jefferson Street (located within the Old Towne Orange District) Staff Contact: Dan Ryan, (714) 744-7224, Bryan@cityoforange.org DRC Continued Item from July 5, 2006 Meeting DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission Senior Planner Dan Ryan provided a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. The applicant stated he could easily be in compliance with everything that has been recommended by Staff; however, he had one concern which was Recommendation #4: "Reduce the width of the family room from 15' to 14' to provide a line of demarcation." He stated this would be a stickler and he asked the committee to explore other ways of creating the line of demarcation. Mr. Ryan responded that when Staff looked at this what was considered was: 1) the previous discussion with the DRC 2) the fact that the hot water heater on the other side somewhat creates it's own line of demarcation 3) the family room had been expanded in size (from 15'x19' to 15'x24') so the 1' reduction to create the line of demarcation would be a reasonable offset Public comment was provided as follows: Jeff Frankel, OTPA stated: All in all it looks like a good project; however, it is unfortunate the garage couldn't be saved. He noted on the west elevation the window style was double hung and then changed to casement and he asked why? The applicant responded the existing house is like that and they are trying to retain the consistency. They agreed with Staff regarding shifting the garage as it would duplicate the presence of the existing (old) garage in terms of the sight line down the driveway; however, he asked for clarification around the offset of the gable and added that generally the gable faces the street. Chair Califf responded they would deal with either the rake or the gable. He liked the creation of a definite line of demarcation as recommended by Staff. If there are any doors or windows existing on the rear of the building they would like to see those reused in the new addition. Janet Crenshaw, OTPA stated: She had a problem with the garage. She could think of only one other example in town where the gable faces the side. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 6 December 2006 Page 7 of 15 She disagreed with Jeff Frankel stating her opinion was the line of demarcation could be just a board going down. Committee Member Wheeler noted that he thought there was still potential for egress problems with the windows in one of the existing bedrooms and he offered suggestions in the event the Building Department requires they go to a bigger window. This included reusing the existing windows. Committee Member Wheeler stated the line of demarcation on the water heater side is evident and the trim may not be necessary. He suggested they might like a 6" further setback (which would make the transition from one roof plane to the other better). Committee Member Wheeler indicated it should be clearly specified that the window and door trim were to match the existing and also, the foundation wall finish needs to match the existing. A discussion regarding the driveway ensued and Chair Califf indicated there has been an occasion where they didn't require a driveway to be redone that wasn't already in the plans to be redone. The extent of the new concrete work was highlighted to the committee along with the shared portion of the driveway. Committee Member DeWees stated that although he would prefer to see the garage gable facing the front, he wouldn't absolutely require it. Committee Member Cathcart stated that an automatic irrigation system would be required for any new landscaping. Chair Califf made a motion to approve DRC No. 4092-06 subject to the following conditions: 1) The garage is moved to the east property line to a setback of 3.5' from the property line. 2) The roof is redesigned to a front gable configuration that still complies with the height limit of the rear property line. 3) All new roof construction, including the garage, conforms to the traditional barge and starter board construction, which means no flat 2x4 outlookers. The starter board spans from the barge to the wall. 4) The ribbon drive is optional; however, if any of the drive between the sidewalk and the existing end of the drive is replaced, it would be replaced with a ribbon drive. 5) The line of demarcation is at least a 1x3 or 1x4 trim. 6) All existing windows that are removed during the course of construction shall be reutilized. If they are removed from the house, they are reused on the house. 7) The drawings should reflect that the window and doors and their trim match the existing on the house. 8) Any new landscaping shall have an automatic irrigation system. 9) If the window in bedroom #2 needs to be revised to meet egress, it should be as small as possible casement window of similar style. The existing windows should be reused elsewhere. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 6 December 2006 Page 8 of 15 The applicant stated it would be their desire to reuse them but asked what if they didn't have a place to reuse them. Chair Califf responded there were several locations where they could use a double hung or a pair of double hungs or a casement; however, if for some reason they couldn't use one they should first speak with Mr. Ryan regarding the design. 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 6 December 2006 Page 9 of 15 3. DRC No. 4106-06 -ROYAL STREET COMMUNICATIONS, ELK'S BUILDING A proposal to install (stealth) cellular roof mounted antennas on the Elk's Building, including removal of utility room on roof. 211 E. Chapman Avenue, (located within the Old Towne Orange District) Staff Contact: Dan Ryan, (714) 744-7224, Bryan a cityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination As Committee Member Cathcart is a member of the Elk's, he recused himself from this project review. Senior Planner Dan Ryan provided a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. The applicant added that Royal Street Communications would be launching a commercial service in the spring under the name of Metro PCS. They originally approached this building with the idea of mimicking the Nextel facility (which is 6x6x10) and that is what was submitted to Staff. They actually did a mock up of the 6x6x10, which was up for approximately one month, and then they communicated with Staff and were advised it was too big and too visible so they went back to the drawing board. Approximately six weeks ago the mock up was removed and they erected the 3x3. This carrier has 6 antennas pointing in 6 different directions while most carriers have 12 pointing in 3 different directions. He advised he received Staff's conditions of approval on Monday and indicated there were some challenges. Specifically, the entire capacity of the Elk's Lodge elevator housing is taken up so there is no way to recess the antennas. He stated there may have been a misunderstanding with respect to removal of the abandoned utility building as there isn't one functioning electrical panel inside and it serves no purpose. There was other equipment removed so perhaps it was not clear that the building was to have been included. With this installation it will be removed. He noted that Staff had told him there has not been any negative public feedback on the most recent mock up installation and asked if the committee would consider eliminating Recommendation #5 in the Staff Report. Public comment was provided as follows: Jeff Frankel, OTPA stated: They would be opposed to any more clutter on top of this building especially in light of the fact that during the last installation they were assured the utility building would be removed and that was not done. The structures are very noticeable from the Plaza and adding more massing would be a shame. They agree with Staff that enlarging the structure would put it over the top as basically the threshold for systems up there has already been surpassed. It definitely has a negative impact on the structure visually and otherwise. The applicant advised that given the sensitivity of the Elk's building, the Royal Street engineers have made concessions, as there is a shadowing factor they are working with and consequently they have to go more vertical to obtain adequate coverage. Committee Member Wheeler asked if City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 6 December 2006 Page 10 of 15 it would be an option to install a 3x3 antenna closer to the front of the building. The applicant responded there is something on the rooftop that blocks it. Committee Member DeWees asked if Verizon could consolidate some of their equipment into something smaller. The applicant responded they had actually used a smaller antenna already than what is customary for their sites. Committee Member Wheeler commented he was very disappointed with the previous installation Nextel's) and how the siding was raised above the roof. Remedies for this were discussed. The use of other locations was discussed, including the new library. Jeff Frankel stated he had spoken with Nora Jacobs and unfortunately the window of opportunity had closed for use of that tower. Chair Califf asked the committee if they wanted to buy off on a location without seeing a mock up. Committee Member Wheeler responded he felt they owed it to the community to have the mock up so people could see it. Committee Member DeWees agreed. The applicant responded the cost is approximately $3,000.00. Different placements were explored with the committee ultimately being in agreement with a location they felt would diminish the visibility from a number of different angles. The applicant was instructed to meet with his engineers and to get it as close as possible to that location pinpointed by Chair Califf. Chair Califf made a motion to continue DRC No. 4106-06 with instruction to the applicant regarding the proposed location (close to the center of the structure) which would contain all six antennas; the condition being that location would be mocked up in some manner between now and the next meeting where this item will be reconsidered. SECOND:Craig Wheeler AYES:Jon Califf, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler NOES:None ABSTAIN:None ABSENT:Joe Woollett RECUSE:Bill Cathcart MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 6 December 2006 Page 1 ] of 15 4. DRC No. 4138-06 -MEAD RESIDENCE A proposal to construct a 220 sq. ft. addition to asingle-family residence. 143 S. Cambridge Street (located within the Old Towne Orange District) Staff Contact: Dan Ryan, (714) 744-7224, dryan@cityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination Senior Planner Dan Ryan provided a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. The applicant added they will be matching what exists currently and she showed the type of door to be used. Public input was provided as follows: Janet Crenshaw, OTPA stated: Her only comment related to the doors and the windows; specifically, they are wood on the inside and something else on the outside and their preference is all wood. Chair stated that typically the public commentary is advisory only since their project is not a contributing structure and their preference is that they be consistent. None of the committee members had any issues with the project as presented. Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve DRC No. 4138-06 subject to the conditions in the Staff Report. SECOND: Donnie DeWees 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 6 December 2006 Page 12 of 15 5. DRC No. 4139-06 - LAFONT RESIDENCE ADDITION A proposal for a facade remodel and addition to the existing 2-story Craftsman Bungalow influenced home. 6747 E. Waterton Avenue Staff Contact: Sonal Thakur, (714) 744-7239, sthakur@cityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination Assistant Planner Sonal Thakur provided a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. No public comment was provided on this item. Committee Member Wheeler stated that he thought they needed to verify that they do have 25' from the property line to the structure and he added that Staff would have to specify what the exact setback is. Ideas offered by Committee Member Wheeler included: 1) He thought the engaged tapered column may result in messy geometry and the corner may become revealed as it tapers up. For this reason he suggested their designer study it carefully as it could present a visual problem. 2) One side showed a smaller roof overhang than the other which would look unbalanced so he suggested they carry out the roof plain. 3) A beam from the wall of the house out would be needed (doesn't have to be exposed, though it may be preferable). A sketch was provided showing the beam line being expressed with the outlooker beam sticking out and the roof coming down on top of it. 4) A little nicer ending to the siding would be better. The applicant responded it is existing. Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve DRC No. 4139-06. SECOND: Donnie DeWees 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 6 December 2006 Page 13 of 15 6. DRC No. 4153-06 - ST. MARY'S CHURCH SITE AND FACADE MODIFICATIONS A proposal to consider as-built landscape, parking, window, and facade modifications to the church expansion. 1515 E. Taft Avenue Staff Contact: Dan Ryan, 714-744-7224, dr~(a,cit of~orange.org Previous DRC Application No. 3699-02 DRC Action: Final Determination Senior Planner Dan Ryan provided a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. No public comment was provided on this item. Chair Califf asked the applicant why they eliminated the landscape in the parking lot to the extent they did. The project architect responded he wasn't going to try to find any excuse for any deficiency; the only problem was the amount of time available to do the construction. When he talked with the landscape architect he was told they used different plant material than was specified and they made the landscape fingers smaller than originally specified. He added that the church is more than willing to do what is necessary to have the plans approved and they will remove all the unapproved plants and replace them with approved plant material. He believed the deficiency was only 10% and asked for any available concessions. Chair Califf responded he is more concerned with the planter area than the plants themselves. Chair Califf asked what prompted the window changes. The project architect responded he was just as surprised as everyone else that the windows were smaller than approved. Committee Member Wheeler stated his biggest problem is the loss of the landscape fingers in the parking lot as it makes it a far less friendly place than it would have been if had been built to plan. The applicant responded the contractor is more than willing to do the fingers but at this point he didn't know which set of plans to give him. The specific fingers to be restored were pointed out on the plans. Committee Member Cathcart stated the plant material that exists is fine but his concern is the width of the planters. There isn't any room for the plants to grow, so they need to be moved to center. Furthermore, the plans show 1804 irrigation heads and they should be changed to 1806. It was pointed out that apparently 1806 heads have actually been installed, so the plans are just incorrect.) Committee Member Cathcart pointed out that because the planters are so narrow, the wall footing creates a problem with the plants. He noted that right now there are two 5-gallon Crape Myrtles and one of them should be enlarged to at least 15-gallon and when purchased, Committee Member Cathcart suggested they get one that is an accurate 15-gallon, not a tiny one as the plant material that exists at the sight is real small. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 6 December 2006 Page l4 of 15 Mr. Ryan stated that originally this project went to the Planning Commission so he pointed out that even if they are coming back for minor changes, it should still substantially conform to the original approved design. Chair Califf made a motion that they find the architecture to be in substantial conformance to what was originally approved by the Design Review Committee and the Planning Commission; however, the site layout curbing and therefore the landscape planters within and on the perimeter of the parking lot need to be installed according to the approved plan with the following adjustments: 1) The existing trees are moved away from the existing wall to the center or near the center of the planter. 2) A 15-gallon tree is placed in the large finger planter in the center of the parking lot. It was noted the existing plant material is acceptable. 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 6 December 2006 Page 15 of IS REVIEW OF MINUTES: Chair Califf made a motion to approve the minutes of the NOVEMBER 1, 2006 meeting with one revision as noted. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Joe Woollett MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT: A motion was made by Chair Califf to adjourn until the next regular meeting on Wednesday, December 20, 2006. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Joe Woollett MOTION CARRIED.