Loading...
03-16-2005 DRC MinutesCITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES March 16, 2005 Committee Members Present: Jon Califf Donnie Dewees Craig Wheeler Joe Woollett Staff in Attendance: Leslie Roseberry, Planning Manager Dan Ryan, Senior Historic Preservation Planner Committee Member Absent: None Administrative Session - 5:00 P.M. The Committee met for an administrative session beginning at 5:00 p.m. The meeting adjourned at approximately 9:10 p.m. Regular Session - 5:30 P.M. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 16, 20Q5 Page 2 1. DRC No. 3979-OS -TURNER RESIDENCE Final determination on site, and building elevations fora 250 sq. ft. room addition 454 S. Center Street, Old Towne Orange Historic District Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, Senior Planner Historic Preservation DRC Action: Final Determination The project was introduced by Senior Planner Daniel Ryan. He noted that the residence was a 1907 Hip Roof Cottage. The existing residence is 1,250 sq. ft., it is a contributing structure, has clapboard siding, recessed front porch, and has the typical bell-cast roof shape design. There is also a contributing 2-car garage on the property. The residence exhibits a high degree of architectural integrity and originality, and the applicant is proposing to do the addition in matching materials and trim, etc. The applicant is requesting use of vinyl-clad windows, and Staff is recommending wood double-hung windows instead. The placement of the proposed addition at the rear of the residence respects the existing streetscape. There is also an offset, or line of demarcation between the existing and new building. Staff is of the opinion that the project is well designed (other than the addition of the wood hung windows) and sited to its location and neighboring context and setting. The applicant, Phil Turner, spoke to the committee members regarding the project. He noted his family's need to increase the size of their residence for the birth of a new child. He also noted that he wanted to improve the existing back patio's windows, which are currently aluminum. Janet Crenshaw, 280 N. Cleveland, OTPA -questioned one of the interior doors, noting that it might be awkward to have two doors (closet and room) opening onto themselves. The applicant took note of this. Jeff Frankel, 384 S. Orange Street, OTPA -Agreed that the addition was sympathetic to the streetscape. He also voiced his desire that the windows be wood, rather than vinyl clad. He questioned whether the rear door is wood (it is), and he wondered if it was possible to match the vents on the roof (some are metal, some are wood trim). He voiced OTPA's appreciation for the quality of the work going into the project. Committee Member Craig Wheeler asked whether the addition would have the upturned bell-cast eave resident on the existing house. The applicant stated that they would attempt to match it. Mr. Wheeler also stated his preference for wood windows. Chair Califf advised the applicant to work with his contractor closely to ensure the type of windows he would receive. From experience, he noted that he had recently seen some "wood windows" that were not truly double-hung wood windows. The committee members also noted that the windowsills that were viewable should be the same size -the drawings currently show that they are not. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 16, 2005 Page 3 Committee Member Joe Woollett asked if the water heater were new. The applicant noted that the existing water heater is on the existing service porch, and for space reasons they were considering moving it outside or in the cellar. The applicant stated that he considered a sheet metal enclosure (painted) and the committee members stated that, from experience, those typically rust. If it were relocated to the cellar, it would be protected. The applicant also stated that he was looking into the newer tank-less water heater. Chair Califf stated that you need a lot of combustible air for them, and obviously the ones that are mounted on an exterior wall are okay. It could also probably go in the cellar. Committee Member Dewees complimented the applicant on the way the louvers and windows were well done and on a raised floor, rather than on slab as some are done. Jon Califf made a motion to approve the project with the following conditions: 1. The new windows be wood, double-hung to match (as near as possible) the existing windows. 2. The proposed water heater be located somewhere inside the structure. 3. The new bathroom window (behind the toilet) be smaller so that it is more similar to the existing bathroom window. 4. New laundry-room windowsills extend down to the horizontal water table. 5. Roof eave have the same profile as the existing. 6. New crawl space vents be wood to match the existing crawl space vents. SECOND: Joe Woollett AYES: Jon Califf, Donnie Dewees, Craig Wheeler, and Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSENT: None RECUSED: None MOTION CARRIED City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 16, 2005 Page 4 2. DRC No. 3902-04 -MARK DRENNER -ACCESSORY SECOND UNIT The project involves the conversion of aone-story, detached garage, into living area, construction of a new two-car garage, modifying the existing garage to accommodate an accessory second unit. 424 S. Grand Street, (Old Towne Orange Historic District) Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, Senior Planner DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission Senior Planner Daniel Ryan introduced the project. He introduced new color photographs to the committee members of the project and surrounding area. The existing residence is a 1906 Hip Roof Cottage that had an earlier addition of a second story. The proposal is to convert a one-car garage into partial living space, and develop a new detached garage attached to the converted garage, and install a bathroom and two bedrooms on the second floor above the garage. There will also be a deck (approximately 192 sq. ft.) off the second floor addition. The garage to be converted is a contributing structure, and there will be a change in roof design to create astair-access to the second floor. He noted Staff's concern that the existing structure is 2'-2" from the property line with an eave overhang, with a window at that point. The front of the proposed garage and second story is located 10' from the rear of the residence. Staff had five areas of concern: 1. Impacts to the existing garage 2. Architectural style of the proposed development 3. Modifications to the existing streetscape 4. Construction of an additional two-story building on a site that Staff believes is currently overbuilt. 5. Cumulative impacts on the established block or neighborhood. There is also an Administrative Adjustment requested for the back-up area being measured to the garage door rather than to the building. Staff basically believes that the site (referencing the Grand Street Study Area) is already overbuilt with an existing .50 FAR. Staff is recommending against the proposal due to these findings, as it does not meet the Secretary of Interior's Standards for In-Fill Development. Doug Ely, architect, and the applicant Mark Drenner spoke to the project. They noted that they had been working with City Staff since April 2004 (approximately one year), and it was not until they received the Staff Report the night before this meeting that they understood that Staff did not support this project. They stated that they were led to believe otherwise. The project began prior to the downzone of Grand Street from R-2 to R-1. The initial project had a 4-car garage (proposing to remove the existing garage which is in poor shape). In working with Staff they understood the downzone was in process and the requirement that the maximum lot coverage is 60%. In working with Staff, the applicants stated they adopted a solution that was suggested by Mr. Ryan, which is a 1-1/2 story addition. This proposal was submitted in September 2004, retaining all the existing garage structure, because it was City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 16, 2005 Page 5 an issue that Staff had brought up (i.e., the garage is an historic structure and it should be preserved). The applicant developed what they believe is a creative solution to retain the historic garage structure so that it looks the same from the street, while improving it so that it looks better. The applicant pointed out the photographs, which show the bad condition of the existing garage. The committee members asked if the existing garage has afoundation -the applicant answered that it had one around the perimeter, and it has a slab base in the center, which is cracked, and in poor condition. This proposal was at .66 FAR. The applicants stated that they again met with Staff and the direction was that the maximum FAR is .6. Mr. Drenner stated that he was embarrassed at this meeting, because he believed he was taking an approach that Staff had directed him to do, and to come to the meeting and find out that they were not in favor of it was an embarrassment to him. Doug Ely, architect, stated that Staff at one point told him that he had made an error in calculating the square footage -and he agreed he had, and he noted that he then went back and tightened up the square footage so that it would meet the maximum of 640 sq. ft. for an accessory second unit. Mr. Ely stated that he felt the staff report was filled with inconsistencies. On page 2 of 7, he noted that Staff had stated the existing structure to be at 2,784 sq. ft., when in fact it is 2,384 sq. ft. (Mr. Ryan asked if that included the enclosed decks, and Mr. Ely stated that it did). He further disagreed with the details regarding the existing context of the buildings on the street. Mr. Ryan stated that his information came from the Grand Street Study. Mr. Ely stated that he went out and walked the block and gave a different number of one, one-and-a-half, and two- story structures. He disputed the numbers used in the findings. He noted that the Staff Report stated that the FAR on the street ranged from .13 to .50 -and by his calculations that would make one of the houses 792 sq. ft., and he did not believe there was a house that small on the street. Mr. Ryan said that he would give Mr. Ely the spreadsheet that he used to calculate these numbers (it was used for the Grand Street Study). Mr. Ely stated that the report showed he was proposing a Conditional Use Permit for asecond-story development and this is not true. The project proposed is aone-and-a-half story project. Mr. Ely felt that some of the comments in the Analysis/Review area were subjective. In summary, Mr. Ely stated that he believed the data used to assess this project was erroneous, and it is allowed by ordnance to go up to a .60 FAR. Mr. Ryan stated that another concern of his, referencing the applicant's comments that the garage is in poor condition, is for the potential that the project could turn into a demolition. Chair Califf stated this was a concern of his, as well. Mr. Ely felt that it could be, noting that on one side they would have to remove the siding, and put in a couple of layers of Type-X water-resistant board because it's within 3 feet of the property line. Mr. Ely also stated that the eave that Mr. Ryan was referring to, they are proposing to clip their eaves flat, and that is a match to the existing residence. Chair Califf invited the public to speak, noting that any questions should be directed towards the Committee Members, not the applicant. Janet Crenshaw, 280 N. Cleveland, OTPA. She voiced concern that the window on the addition only had 2'-2" clearance. She said she did not understand how this project could be considered aone-and-a-half story. And she did not believe the conversion of the garage retained its historic character. She felt the existing house was already way overbuilt for the lot. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 16, 2005 Page 6 Chair Califf asked Mr. Ryan to clarify what a second story addition was, and Mr. Ryan stated that if the second story exceeded 60% of the floor area below it, it is classified as two-story. Mr. Ely stated that their addition was 45%. Mr. Wheeler asked Mr. Ryan if he concurred with the 45%. Mr. Ryan asked what the footprint of the existing garage was (the answer was 482 sq. ft.), and the area above it is 350 sq. ft. (Mr. Ryan stated that the 60% took into consideration the 5-foot rule, meaning that if the roof was sloped to the side, once it went below 5-feet it was not considered part of the floor area). Andrea McCullough, OTPA, stated she was not considering the issues with the design so much as the sheer mass of the project. She is opposed to approval of the project. Mr. Ely stated that he did not believe the DRC's responsibility was to assess mass issues, that that was the purview of the Planning Commission. He stated that his final comment was that 60% FAR was allowed by ordnance (City of Orange and state mandate). Jeff Frankel, 384 S. Orange Street, OTPA, said he agreed it was a challenge on how to add additional living space to this lot. He felt it was a challenge that could not be met. He did not want to be repetitious, but also felt there were design issues which needed to be addressed. He pointed out that the City of Orange did over afour-year study on the two blocks in question where this applicant lives -and determined that both blocks (this one being the worst) were overbuilt and exceeded density limits. He stated that he was quite familiar with the type of garage that the applicant was proposing to utilize to build asecond- story addition, and he felt that basically the garage could not be saved; it would have to be rebuilt. He also is leery of a demolition occurring here. Committee member Dewees asked Mr. Drenner for clarification on what was contained in the second story addition on the existing house? Mr. Drenner stated that it was added on before he bought the house, and contains a bathroom, office, and master bedroom. The first floor of the added-on section includes afull-bath, family room and den. Mr. Woollett stated that he did not understand how the whole downzone issue even came into play in this case. Mr. Ryan stated that it really doesn't, because unless a building permit was received prior to the zone change, you do not have the right to build. Mr. Woollett asked how they were to clarify if it was aone-and-a-half or atwo-story. If it is a two story it must go before the Planning Commission? Chair Califf stated that the Design Guidelines state that if the second story is contained within the overall roof area of the existing stricture, within 60% of the structure immediately beneath it, it would be considered a one-and-a-half story. Mr. Woollett asked if this would definitely. be considered atwo- story? And Mr. Ryan stated yes. Mr. Drenner stated that he was confused between the State Mandate and the City's Design Review Guidelines. He referenced the State Mandate section which read: "An application should not be subject to excessively burdensome Conditions of Approval and should not be subject to public hearing or public comment and should not be subject to any discretionary decision-making process." Mr. Ryan stated that this would apply for projects outside the City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 16, 2005 Page 7 City's Historic District. Chair Califf stated that it would not supercede conditions that were previously adopted. Mr. Drenner further referenced that it explicitly stated in the State Mandate that "a locality may require second units to comply with development standards such as height, setback and architectural review. At the same time, architectural review should be handled in a ministerial fashion, without discretionary public hearings or review." Planning Manager Leslie Aranda Roseberry stated that the City of Orange designed its code around the State Mandates. The State Mandate, she stated, was put into effect to get rid of Conditional Use Permits for accessory second units, and the City does not require Conditional Use Permits for an accessory second unit. However, the City does require them in Old Towne for second stories. She explained those were two separate issues. She went on to explain that the City's architectural review is not ministerial, because that's not a review. Ministerial means there's no discretion, where as architectural review there is discretion. And that's been set up this way in the City of Orange for years through the Design Review Committee. The City's Infill Design Guidelines, which directly relate to the State's Code, states that accessory second units are required to go through Design Review Committee. This was approved by the Planning Commission, City Council and the City Attorney's Office. Committee Member Woollett stated that the changes being proposed to the garage would render it no longer anything like it was before and he could not see approving such a change. The second story issue, he stated, seemed to be quite clear, and he did not understand how the applicant could include a portion of the first floor that is not under the second floor in order to meet the percentage above. Mr. Woollett stated that the garage is a contributing building. By removing the door (and thereby making it no longer a garage), it would no longer be considered a contributing building. Mr. Roseberry stated that if the Committee Members agreed that the project was indeed a second-story, then it would need a Conditional Use Permit, and it would be taken forward to the Planning Commission with whatever is the Committee's recommendation. If the Committee believes that it is a one-and-a-half story, she stated, then it would stop here at the Committee and a motion to approve or deny the project could be made. She noted to the applicant that regardless of the DRC's decision, it can be appealed by the applicant. If it's simply a recommendation to the Planning Commission, then it would go on to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission's action, whatever that is, could be appealed to the City Council. Committee Member Joe Woollett made a motion to recommend denial of the project to the Planning Commission based on the following; I. The addition is considered to be a two-story addition. 2. Changes to the garage area are equivalent to a demolition. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 16, 2005 Page 8 The Design Review Committee considers the addition to be excessive, particularly since the previous addition on the site already presents excessive bulk and mass. Mr. Woollett proposed an amendment to his previous motion stating: L If the project were to be approved, the style of the addition should match the style of the original building. Chair Califf seconded the amendment. SECOND:Jon Califf AYES:Jon Califf, Donnie Dewees, Craig Wheeler, and Joe Woollett NOES:None ABSENT:None RECUSED:None MOTION CARRIED City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 16, 2005 Page 9 3. DRC No. 3944-04 MAPLE WALK TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT A request for review and recommendation to the Planning Commission of the architectural and landscape plans for a forty unit transit oriented development, comprised of for-sale residential loft units, five of which will be work/live units; and a request for the Planning Commission to recommend approval of the proposed development as a replacement structure for the two existing industrial multi-tenant buildings, which are noncontributing structures within the Old Towne District. 501 W. Maple Avenue Staff Contact: Christine Kelly, Contract Project manager DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission Christine Kelly, Contract Project Manager, introduced the project. She gave a brief history of the area, stating that it was part of the Santa Fe Depot Specific Plan. The plan addresses industrial area redevelopments, and the fact that it specifically recommends to consider residential and mixed-use developments. It is within aquarter-mile of the train station, and Staff applied Transit Oriented Development Standards, although the city really doesn't have those standards yet. So Staff tried to make it as close to the Santa Fe Depot Specific Plan standards as possible. The property does have two industrial buildings that are not contributing structures. Because there is a demolition that is taking place within the Old Towne Historic District, the DRC will need to make a recommendation to a finding that the replacement structure is an appropriate structure in light of a demolition of anon-contributing structure. She noted that the property is 1.82 acres, and the density of the project is approximately 22-units per acre. The Santa Fe Depot standards set a range of between six and 24 dwellings per acre. The project is also providing six affordable for-sale units, so the project is entitled to the application of the State Density Bonus Law for one unit. Ms. Kelly introduced Kim Prijatel, the Project Manager for the Olson Company, as well as Karl Dakteris. Rick Otto from the City's Economic Development Department was also in attendance. Ms. Kelly noted that the applicants had met with OTPA, and briefly discussed the architecture of the project with the committee members. She stated that the plans reflected more of the industrial rather than the residential. She stated that the applicants did look at some of the historic architectural details of the buildings within the City's Historic District, and did include some of those details in the final designs. Committee Member Woollett asked what percentage they needed to meet in order to comply with the Affordability Guidelines. Ms. Kelly stated that it was 10% of the number of units. The project would need four to comply, they are providing six. Rick Otto explained that the pricing of the units is based on the county's median income guidelines, which is $75,000, so the units will be priced at around $300,000. Ms. Kelly further noted that five of the units would have an option for some sort of retail. Mr. Wheeler asked whether any signage for these five units was being proposed, and if so, would it come back to the DRC for approval. Ms. Kelly said they could condition for it, though they City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 16, 2005 Page 10 haven't addressed that issue, as yet. She stated that there were a number of issues such as this that they were just beginning to address for the Planning Commission, and that they would probably enforce these through the CC&R's. Ms. Kelly gave an overview of the two plans, Plan 1 and Plan 2, noting that on Plan 1 (with the State Density Law), the applicants are proposing a tandem garage. She also noted that on some of the units (on the third level) there was a spiral staircase to an optional roof deck. It is not a response to a reduirement, it is simply an additional amenity for the project. The applicants spent some time explaining the intermingling of the two Plan types within the project. In a review with the Olson Project's internal Architectural Review Committee, they brought up the fact that as you're going down a specific drive-aisle, it's identical the whole way through and it starts to feel very monotonous. So by inverting one building and putting the Plan 2's in the middle and the Plan 1's on the end, makes it so the exterior stairs and open space don't face out, as well as it puts the Plan 1's (with the balconies, etc.) on the ends. The applicant provided both materials and color charts. They have combined both brick and metal (metal awnings, balconies, etc. to reflect the industrial nature of the buildings). And the brick is compatible with historic buildings within the area. Chair Califf asked Ms. Kelly how she defined Transit Oriented Development. She stated that it is defined within state law as a compact development within one-quarter mile of a train station that is not as reliant on parking and possibly provides some work live arrangements. Ms. Kelly announced that the City had received funding for a pedestrian bridge, and the exact location has not been determined. As part of an OCTA grant, the city will be receiving $3 million to do a pedestrian bridge over to the depot area. It is an excellent addition to this project, and is funded for 2005-2006. It will have elevators and be ADA accessible. Mr. Woollett stated that the plans for this project reminded him of some of the worst facets of other projects within the city, in terms of the placement of buildings, the amount of open space, the way the parking is handled. He noted that some of his personal clients were non-profit groups that own housing in very depressed areas. In looking at this project from a design standpoint, he stated that he could not help but ask himself if there is something about this project that will make it very difficult to maintain at a high level of development that will be complimentary with the objectives of the city. He stated that he was in favor of it relating to the transit, but felt the quality of the spaces around the buildings were extremely poor because of the parallel walls, the height of the buildings and the areas between the buildings appear like alleys even though they have trees. He reiterated that he's not the Planning Commission, but rather he's purely looking at the project from an aesthetic standpoint. He does not feel this project is compatible with the area around it. He also noted that he had a problem with the buildings themselves, because they were not brick, but rather brick facades ("stick-on bricks" as he called them). Committee Member Dewees said it would have the appearance of the thin facade in the windows, because the windows would be pushed out to the edge of the thin brick and it wouldn't show the depth of real brick. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 16, 2005 Page 11 Janet Crenshaw, OTPA, stated that she just moved two blocks further away from Chapman University and has more problems than where she used to live. Looking at the surrounding area and knowing that Chapman could possibly buy these units and rent them out to four students with four cars, that could be a problem. The students are already using the public parking lot. She just sees this multiplying an already burdensome problem. She felt 3 stories in height was just way too much for Old Towne. Jeff Frankel, 384 S. Orange, OTPA. He noted that the Olson Company was gracious enough to meet with OTPA on a number of occasions. They provided renderings that Mr. Frankel presented to the OTPA Board. The Board's main concern with this project is the height. They are not opposed to transit housing or housing in the area. But they felt that the city should stick with the height limits within the Specific Plan and also parking and any other restrictions that are stated within the Depot Specific Plan. The Board also had an issue with brick veneer and foam treatments on the cornices and finials. They believe Olson Company might take as an example the Jensen Building, which used real brick, wood windows, etc. Committee Member Wheeler also stated that he had a problem with the height of this project. This project is to fit into an existing residential neighborhood, and is not an isolated structure. He noted that he did a quick calculation on the shadows cast by these buildings, and in the winter solstice it was about 58' and in the equinox it is about 25', and about 6-1/2' in the summer. So that means that for a good portion of the year, some of the neighboring buildings would be completely in shadow from the towers. Realizing that these are preliminary plans, he wondered if it might be possible (with a variance) to shift the whole project 5' or more forward to cut down on the shadowing of the buildings, and to make the area a bit more harmonious. Ms. Prijatel reviewed a bit of the history of the project, stating that they had originally brought Staff 34-tuckunder Craftsman Style condos, which met the city's design guidelines. Staff immediately felt that because it was next to a transit station, it was inappropriate. Staff's immediate feel was that if there was ever an opportunity within Old Towne to make a prof ect transit oriented, this would be the place to do something really urban, in kind of an older industrial feel. Staff stated that they didn't want the "fake" Craftsman style in Orange, because when it's in the City it's a true Craftsman unit. When Olson was given the new direction, they got really excited and were able to present a more open (loft-style) unit. Chair Califf stated that he felt that the way the meeting was going that it would make sense to continue it, as he didn't believe anyone was ready to make a recommendation on this preliminary project. He recapped the committee's suggestions: 1. More of a frontage-style element as it relates to the immediate neighborhood. 2. Return with street elevations, paving, architectural elements. Chair Califf moved to continue this item. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 16, 2005 Page 12 SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Jon Califf, Donnie Dewees, Craig Wheeler, and Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSENT: None RECUSED: None MOTION CARRIED Committee Member Dewees moved to adjourn the meeting. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Jon Califf, Donnie Dewees, Craig Wheeler, and Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSENT: None RECUSED; None MOTION CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m.