Loading...
02-20-2008 DRC MinutesCITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES -FINAL 20 February 2008 Committee Members Present: Jon Califf Bill Cathcart Donnie DeWees Craig Wheeler Joe Woollett Committee Members Absent: None Staff in Attendance: Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Dan Ryan, Senior Planner Historic Preservation Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner Howard Morris, Senior Landscape Coordinator Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary Administrative Session - 5:00 P.M. The Committee met for an administrative session beginning at 5:15 p.m. Chair Wheeler opened the Administrative Session with a review of the Agenda. Planning Manager, Leslie Aranda Roseberry, requested that item No. 4, CHOC Hospital Lobby, be moved up in the Agenda to allow the Staff Planner to attend the Planning Commission meeting beginning at 6:30 p.m. Assistant City Attorney, Gary Sheatz, stated he had received correspondence from T-Mobile regarding an item that had been continued. They asked him to pass along information received. T-Mobile had a conversation with the supervisor of S.H.P.O., Susan Stratton, and she would be reviewing the letter from OTPA. Ms. Stratton stated if the items that were being addressed in the letter had already been addressed by the applicant they would not be reopening that issue and she would be sending an email or letter correspondence stating their position. Chair Wheeler stated that had been the piece that was holding the item from coming back before them. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated with that new information they could now get it placed back on the schedule. Committee Member Woollett made a motion to adjourn the Administrative Session. Administrative Session adjourned at 5:20 p.m. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 20, 2008 Page 2 of 12 SECOND: Jon Califf AYES: Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. Regular Session - 5:30 P.M. The meeting adjourned at approximately 7:00 p.m. to the next regular scheduled meeting on Wednesday, March 5, 2008. 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. 1) APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 20, 2008 Page 3 of 12 AGENDA ITEMS: Continued Items: None New Agenda Items: 2) DRC No. 4047-OS - RICHARDSON NEW IN-FILL GARAGE/OFFICE DEVELOPMENT A proposal to construct a 170 sq. ft. office and a 1,513 sq. ft. three-bay garage on vacant parcel at 419 South Glassell Street. The new single-story residential styled in-fill building will include shared parking in conjunction with the existing 1904 Hip Roof Vernacular office building located to the north. 419 South Glassell Street, Old Towne Historic District Staff Contact: Dan Ryan 714-744-7224, dryan@cityoforange.org DRC Action: Preliminary Review and Comments Senior Planner, Dan Ryan, provided a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicants, Kimm and Steve Richardson, address on file, were present to answer questions. They asked for clarification on the parking spots and the landscape requirement. They understood the landscape percentages and asked if there was a need for landscape in the alley? Mr. Ryan stated there would be foundation landscaping. The 10% related to the landscaping of the parking lot, which could include vine pockets, trees, or shrub areas. Typically what was planted would not obscure the property for security purposes. Committee Member Califf stated the wheel stops were typically a hazard and sometimes a planter could be added as a wheel stop. Mr. Richardson stated they were going to use a bumper box. As an owner and businessman and understanding that there were guidelines, the business was between other buildings and not visible from the street and he wanted to know why they needed landscape in the alley? They would landscape the front and sides of the building which made sense. In regard to the lighting, he felt the light coming from the building would be sufficient for the Police Department's approval. Chair Wheeler opened the item for public comment. Public Comment Cathie Caldwell, address on file, stated she lived directly behind the proposed business and she was trying to improve her home and make it look nice even from the back alley. She cared about the way the alley area of the business looked. Ms. Caldwell stated she was supportive of the project. She was concerned about the trees, there were two trees that were frequented by parrots City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 20, 2008 Page 4 of 12 and other birds, and she would hate to see the trees removed. It was a nice project as long as the look remained with the Old Towne standards. Dennis Caldwell, address on file, stated he was seeing the project for the first time and he was in favor of the project. He felt the project was in good hands and the applicant would find common ground to make it look like it belonged in Old Towne. It was a great piece of property and he was looking forward to seeing the project developed. He wanted to see the trees saved and he understood construction issues, however, trees were an important element in Old Towne, particularly ones of that size. Jeff Frankel, address on file, representing the OTPA, stated he had a few comments regarding the project design. He agreed with Staff that the doors should be straight across at the top rather than arched. He felt the massing was too much for the context of the block. Mr. Frankel stated there were too many things going on with the design, there was a hip roof, two gable roofs and the applicant needed to pick a design and go in that direction. If the building would be going toward a Craftsman design they needed to have a typical double gable and the window located in the upper gable was inappropriate. The use of flagstone would be inappropriate as well. The setback should match the existing streetscape so it would not look out of line with the rest of the street. He also had concerns about the mature trees as they had an impact on the streetscape. Chair Wheeler opened the item to discussion by the Committee. Committee Member Woollett asked if the storage equipment went above the plate line? Mr. Richardson stated they had trucks, lifts, and equipment that they did not want to leave outside. Some of the equipment would go above the plate line. Committee Member Califf stated the middle door appeared to break the plate line. Mr. Richardson stated the equipment would be taller than that. Committee Member Woollett stated that would mean going with a truss with a sloped bottom cord. That would make it difficult to have a hip on the front. Mr. Richardson stated they had an elevation of the adjacent building and they had duplicated that design in their project. They added the window in an attempt to appease the Old Towne needs. He understood there were concerns on the design; however, they were mimicking what already existed. Committee Member Califf stated the problem with that argument was that they had picked design pieces out, but the applicant's building was nothing like the surrounding buildings. Committee Member Woollett stated the combination of designs was odd. It appeared that there was a lot of mass to the project. Committee Member Califf asked if the setback was 16 and not 12? Mr. Ryan stated yes, 16 was correct. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 20, 2008 Page 5 of 12 Chair Wheeler stated the project was a mish-mash of styles. There was a hip roof section with a bell cast roof and a very unusual bent up eave. There was an entry that looked Craftsman, but it did not go with the hip roof and bell cast form. The arches, especially in the rear, added another style and the window proportions did not look right. He shared some sketches he had done with the applicant and the Committee Members and gave his suggestions. It would help to make the project fit in more with the streetscape. He had included a raised porch in his sketch which would make it a bit more traditional and a gable in the back. Mr. Richardson stated they needed to insure they had the proper clearance for their trailers. He did not have a problem with changing the windows and asked if they suggested carrying the hip all the way back? Chair Wheeler stated no, that would not allow them to get the height they needed and they might want to add a gable to the back. They could also increase the pitch. He suggested they study the house across the street which was a Victorian style, with that style they could get the height. He recommended they add the exact location of the existing trees to their plans. Committee Member Cathcart stated they should add as much landscaping as they could get. Landscaping was more than just a plant here and there, it showed that someone cared and that the building was occupied. In driving down an alley and seeing dirt or no landscaping gave the appearance that the property was not being maintained or it was vacant. Committee Member Califf stated as the project had a commercial parking lot the City code required the landscape in that area. Committee Member DeWees stated he had a much different view, he did not like to see a garage building look like it was a house. They spoke a lot about authenticity and not having false history in town and if it was actually a commercial garage it should be addressed that way. As opposed to taking a South Orange County tract house approach to the project and adding borrowed details from an adjacent property. The area was not just predominantly residential and he would rather see an approach of showing the project as a garage with an office rather than trying to make it look like a house. Mr. Richardson stated the comments from Committee Member DeWees contradicted the DRC report from May 2006, when the DRC had first reviewed their project. The new design had been based on all of those recommendations and the plans had been created based on those recommendations. Mr. Ryan stated the project had been before the DRC on a previous date. Committee Member DeWees asked if they had the plans that had been previously submitted? Mr. Ryan stated the building that had been originally submitted for review was a completely different design. Chair Wheeler stated the DRC had recommended a porch. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 20, 2008 Page 6 of 12 Mr. Richardson stated they had taken the recommendations to their architect for modification of their design. Committee Member Califf stated when the project returned the applicant should insure that the specific materials were listed. Mr. Richardson asked if they could use Hardy board? Mr. Ryan stated the project was an in-fill related to historic structures and they were looking for wood materials. Mr. Richardson stated the Hardy board looked like wood once it was painted. He asked for clarification on what was absolute, and what was flexible regarding material usage? Committee Member Califf stated if they used Hardy board they would need corner boards. As the project was not an addition to an existing house the applicant could use alternative materials, however, they encouraged the use of traditional materials. Chair Wheeler suggested if they used Hardy board that they use the smooth surfaced boards. Committee Member Califf stated on the doors Staff was recommending wood sectioned doors. Mr. Richardson stated yes he understood that recommendation. Committee Member DeWees stated he wanted to retract his suggestions as the project did not look familiar to him. He agreed with what OTPA had stated and Chair Wheeler suggested in consolidating the styles. From a massing standpoint he supported lowering the height. Mr. Richardson stated the height was critical as they needed to be able to get their trailers in. Committee Member Califf reiterated that the applicant needed to specify the material and the trim material as well. The column appeared to be ledge stone and a tapered column was not characteristic with the other design elements. Chair Wheeler stated the applicant needed to choose a style and incorporate the elements into that style. He asked if they were familiar with the Community Services landscape requirements? Mr. Richardson stated they did not have a problem with the landscape and he was still struggling with the landscape for the parking lot. Senior Landscape Coordinator, Howard Morris, stated they would need a tree removal permit if the trees would eventually be removed. Mr. Richardson pointed out the area on the plans where the trees were located. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 20, 2008 Page 7 of 12 Committee Member Califf stated in making the roof steeper and adding a hip it would reduce the apparent visual mass. Mr. Richardson stated they would take the suggestions to their architect. Chair Wheeler stated a motion was not required as the project was presented for preliminary review. Mr. Richardson asked for clarification on the parking lot landscape requirement, he wanted clear direction on what was required. Chair Wheeler stated the City had a requirement for a percentage of parking lot landscaping that was very clear. Committee Member Califf stated the code was very clear on what could be counted. Typically it was landscaping in the parking lot or along the perimeter of the parking lot that could be counted. Mr. Richardson stated he did not understand why the zone change had not been completed. The City had their fees for approximately two years and they still did not have the zone changed. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated they would not be able to go forward to the Planning Commission with the zone change without having something to go with it. The area could not be changed without the use being identified. Committee Member Woollett stated the reason the adjacent parking lots did not have landscaping was that the code requirement had not been in force when those parking lots were created. Mr. Richardson stated on South Side Market there was no landscaping or parking. It was a sore subject as they did not receive any notification of the hearing for that project and they were their next door neighbor. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated the DRC meetings were not typically public hearings and that was the reason for no notification to surrounding neighbors. Mr. Ryan explained what the next steps for the applicant would be to move forward with their project. The DRC then concluded discussion on the item. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 20, 2008 Page 8 of 12 3) DRC No. 4306-07 -JOHNSON RESIDENCE A proposal to construct a 157 sq. ft. one-story master bath addition to the rear of a contributing 1912 Hip Roof Cottage. Project also includes the installation of new exterior stairs, 28 sq. ft. storage area, and new access door to the existing 1-1/2-story loft above the contributing detached garage. 616 E. Maple Avenue, Old Towne Historic District Staff Contact: Dan Ryan 714-744-7224, dryanncityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination Chair Wheeler recused himself stating he was the project architect. Senior Planner, Dan Ryan, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Gloria Johnson, address on file, was present to answer questions. Committee Member Cathcart stated there was a requirement from Community Services for landscape plans and an automatic irrigation system if any new landscape would be added. Ms. Johnson stated she would be adding new landscaping and a new irrigation system had been added. Vice Chair DeWees opened the item for public comment. Public Comment Jeff Frankel, address on file, representing the OTPA, stated they agreed with the Staff recommendations. He had a concern with the exterior staircase and they did not want the garage wall covered. He gave a suggestion for reducing the massing and blending the staircase into the wall. Ms. Johnson stated they had originally wanted that design; however, there was a problem in doing that which would necessitate removal of the tree. She had initially wanted something very simple, but did not want to remove the tree. Committee Member Califf stated an open baluster would reduce the mass. He asked if the bathroom would remain? Ms. Johnson stated there would not be a bathroom. She wanted to clarify on the word pickets what was meant and her architect was not clear on what was recommended for the siding. Committee Member Califf stated the garage was unique and they did not need to match it. A smaller scale on the stairs would work better. They could match the house with the other siding. Committee Member Woollett asked if the stair assembly could be more open? City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 20, 2008 Page 9 of 12 Mr. Ryan stated they were creating a storage area. Committee Member Woollett asked if the architect had discussed the railing with Staff. Mr. Ryan stated yes, they had reviewed that. Committee Member Califf questioned the requirement for a line of demarcation between an existing modern addition and a new modern addition, as they would not be demarking a modern addition from the historic fabric. The bedroom was an addition. Given what they were doing it probably would not matter. From a construction and finish standpoint there might be an advantage to it, however, he could not see that it would be a requirement of the standards. Ms. Johnson stated the architect had felt the setback was an easier way to go. Committee Member Califf stated another way to go about it would be to have the offset and a vertical trim board where the siding would meet. It was a fairly common line of demarcation. Ms. Johnson asked on removal of the metal door the recommendation was to install wood paneled doors, which was plural, and did that mean to install sliders as opposed to one door? Committee Member Califf stated he felt there was not enough width for two doors, if it was a standard garage that could be done, however, it was not and would not be functional to be used as a garage. They were looking for a wood door, single acting door that would go up with trim to give the appearance of two doors. Ms. Johnson stated she would be completing further restorations to the house including addition of authentic screens and the windows would be replaced to match the original windows. There would be copper gutters and light fixtures. Committee Member Califf made a motion to approve DRC No. 4306-07, Johnson Residence, with the following conditions: 1. Eliminate Staff Recommendation No. 1 from the Staff Report. 2. Include Staff Recommendation No. 2 for a handrail. 3. On Staff Recommendation No. 3, replace the plural doors, to read door. 4. Eliminate, per applicants choice, the one foot offset as a line of demarcation and provide a vertical 1 x 4 or 1 x 6 wood trim at the joint between existing and new siding. SECOND: Joe Woollett AYES: Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None RECUSED: Craig Wheeler MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 20, 2008 Page 10 of 12 4) DRC No. 4319-08 - CHOC HOSPITAL LOBBY A proposal to remodel and expand the existing hospital lobby by 3,568 sq. ft and reconfigure the existing entry drive plaza to the existing CHOC Hospital North Tower, which will result in the relocation or replacement of pedestrian access, landscaping, and signage. 455 South Main Street Staff Contact: Chad Ortlieb, 714-744-7237, cortlieb(a~cityoforan e.or DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission Committee Member Cathcart recused himself from this item as his firm is the landscape architect working on the project. Senior Planner, Chad Ortlieb, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Public Comment None. Committee Member Califf asked, referring to an area on the plans, what type of material was being used? Applicant representative, Fred Talarico, address on file, stated it would be concrete. Chair Wheeler stated he understood the building would be temporary and if the applicant knew what the time frame was for the new development? Mr. Talarico stated it would be quite a few years. There would be the addition of a tower as part of the master plan. Chair Wheeler asked what were the plans for the existing topiary? Mr. Talarico stated they would be salvaging the plants and relocating them within the project. Chair Wheeler stated his biggest concern was moving the children's area to the north side of the building. Mr. Talarico stated the area was being improved with family access. It was being developed into a more family-friendly, more secure area. Committee Member Woollett asked when did children use the area? Mr. Talarico stated it was not ahigh-use area. It was used for siblings of patients. Committee Member Woollett understood that although the lobby would be increasing in size it would not present more traffic than what was being experienced currently. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 20, 2008 Page 11 of 12 Mr. Ortlieb stated that was correct. Parking was based on the number of beds per hospital, and with the building codes and use perspectives the lobby addition was a service enhancer rather than a service attractor. They would be expanding the lobby and enhancing the service. Committee Member Woollett asked if the intent was for families to gather in the lobby area? Applicant representative, Paul Van Dolah, address on file, stated currently there was an area that gave the children opportunity to play D.J.'s which took up a significant portion of the lobby and another area for seating. If currently visiting the existing lobby you would find many families in the lobby waiting, watching T.V. They were creating the opportunity to expand the area and add additional features for families to create a less congested area. Committee Member Woollett stated the area was already congested and adding the space made the area more visually congested. Mr. Van Dolah stated when you walked into the lobby it was more congested inside with kids on top of kids, what this would do was to give relief inside the building. Chair Wheeler pointed out the correction that needed to be made on the plans in the language savage" vs. "salvage". Chair Wheeler asked the applicant if they were familiar with the additional conditions presented by Community Services and were there any questions regarding those conditions? Mr. Talarico stated they were familiar with those conditions and had no problems with the conditions. Committee Member Woollett made a motion to recommend DRC No. 4319-08, CHOC Hospital Lobby, to the Planning Commission in accordance with the recommendations presented by Staff and the landscape conditions included from Community Services. SECOND: Jon Califf AYES: Jon Califf, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES:None ABSTAIN:None ABSENT:None RECUSED:Bill Cathcart MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 20, 2008 Page 12 of 12 ADJOURNMENT: A motion was made by Committee Member Califf to adjourn to the next regular meeting on Wednesday, March 5, 2008. SECOND: Donnie DeWees AYES: Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Craig Wheeler MOTION CARRIED.