Loading...
05-04-2005 DRC MinutesCITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES May 4, 2005 Committee Members Present: Jon Califf Donnie Dewees Craig Wheeler Joe Woollett Staff in Attendance: 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 8:50 p.m. Regular Session - 5:30 P.M. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 4, 2005 Page 2 1. DRC No. 3980-OS -EXOTIC PROPERTIES, LLC Review of site, building, and landscaping plans for a new commercial building. 180 S. Tustin Street Staff Contact: Christopher Carnes, Senior Planner DRC Action: Final Determination Approved on Consent Calendar with Staff Conditions and Landscape Notes) A motion was made by Committee Member Craig Wheeler to approve the project as submitted. SECOND: Donnie Dewees 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 May 4, 2005 Page 3 2. DRC No. 3985-OS - CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY Review of site, building and landscape plans for a new athletic field and a new multi- level subterranean parking structure containing approximately 911 parking spaces. Location: Immediately south of Walnut Avenue, east of Orange Street, west of Center Street on the main campus of Chapman University Staff Contact: Kim Chaffin, Associate Planner DRC Action: Recommendation to Community Development Director Committee Member Dewees recused himself due to the fact that his residence is within 500 feet of the Chapman University campus. Associate Planner Kim Chaffin presented the staff report, indicating Chapman University, proposes construction of a new athletic field and multi-level subterranean parking structure containing approximately 915 parking spaces on a two-acre site located immediately south of Walnut Avenue, east of Orange Street and west of Center Street. The proposed project will replace the existing natural turf field with a synthetic turf field to better accommodate year-round use. The athletic field will be constructed on top of a two-story subterranean parking structure, which will increase the amount of available off-street parking spaces on the main campus. The athletic field/subterranean parking structure is Phase 1 of a larger two-phase project. Phase 2 includes an aquatics center and athletics pavilion. Phase 2 will be submitted to the City for review at a future date. The project involves demolition of the existing athletics field, the Athletics Administration Offices and Panther Football Offices (housed in trailers), as well as the Ernie Chapman Stadium. The project site is located within the Local Old Towne Historic District, but outside the National Register Historic District. A new scoreboard will be installed on the south edge of the field, and four new athletic field lighting fixtures are proposed for installation to provide night lighting. The subterranean parking structure will include two levels containing approximately 915 parking spaces. The number of spaces per parking level is expected to vary, subject to the final engineering of the structure. In no case will the structure provide less than 875 spaces nor more than 915 spaces. The vehicular entrance to the structure has a total of three lanes, and the middle lane is reversible and maybe switched from entry to exit as the situation warrants. The subterranean parking structure is designed with seven standard staircases providing pedestrian access into and out of the garage. A grand staircase and an elevator are proposed for the southwest corner of the garage. The grand staircase/elevator will provide primary access from both levels of the parking structure to the campus core and convenient access to the Hutton Sports Center. No parking space will be located more than 250 linear feet from an exit. The parking garage will include sprinklers for fire protection purposes. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 4, 2005 Page 4 The subterranean parking structure is designed with exhaust shafts to ensure adequate ventilation. The exact sizes, locations and designs of the exhaust shafts will be determined by the applicant during the final design/engineering. Each shaft will be approximately 10 feet tall and covered with brick (either real or synthetic, depending on the final design of the shafts). The interior of the parking structure will be painted a bright white so as to reflect light and create a bright, well lit parking structure that facilitates surveillance of the facility by parking structure users and campus security personnel. The project site is surrounded by the following uses: East: Four tennis courts and Argyros Forum parking lot; South: Leatherby Libraries and "Panther Plaza"; West: Hutton Sports Center, Stadium parking lot, and further west, the Orange parking lot; and North: Walnut Avenue, with residential uses on the north side of the street. The proposal is subject to the development standards for the Chapman University Specific Plan Amendment No. 5, and are as follows: The proposed project is located within the A-1 zone of the Specific Plan area, which allows for athletic facilities and fields, academic facilities, administrative offices, parking lots and structures, and related University uses. Pedestrian and vehicular access to the project site will be available from Walnut Avenue on the northern boundary of the site, and from Panther Plaza to the south. Paved pedestrian-only walkways and a plaza will connect the athletic field/subterranean parking structure with the Hutton Sports Center. Ingress/egress to the subterranean parking structure will be provided from an access driveway parallel to Walnut Avenue, which will connect to the Walnut Avenue/Orange Street intersection. The project proposes a target of 911 parking spaces, with a minimum of 875 spaces and a maximum of 915 spaces. The project includes removal of 140 existing parking spaces in the Stadium parking lot, thereby resulting in a maximum net increase of 775 spaces. The Specific Plan requires a building setback from Walnut Avenue to be a minimum of 20 feet. The proposed 10-foot high exhaust shafts are located 20 feet from the property line. Stair rails and a low retaining wall are located within the setback area. Landscaping in the project area is to be consistent with the Chapman University Master Landscape Plan (MLP) that was approved by the City in September 2003. The project area includes four of the eight types of campus open spaces identified in the MLP: a pedestrian mall, secondary gateway, plazas and streetscape. Attachment No. 1 contains the MLP design criteria for these four types of open spaces. All lighting on the site must comply with the provisions of the Specific Plan as well as the O.M.C. The Specific Plan directs that light quality must be geared to the specific use of the area, City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 4, 2005 Page 5 and should appear attractive during the day when the pole, base and light add another dimension to the campus scene. The Specific Plan also requires that reflectors and shields be installed in playing field lighting to minimize spill light and glare. The six existing 80-foot high athletic field lighting fixtures will be removed and replaced with newer lighting fixtures. All signage must comply with the Specific Plan and the O.M.C. The project includes a new scoreboard sign to be installed at the southern end of the field. The Specific Plan allows marquee signs with a maximum area of 140 square feet and a usable copy area of approximately 40 square feet. The DRC shall make a recommendation or final determination as authorized by O.M.C. Section 17.08.020(d) to approve, approve with conditions, or deny a project at a public meeting. In making such recommendation or determination, the Committee shall consider adopted design standards and guidelines (where applicable), and the Secretary of Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Rehabilitation (where applicable). The proposed project is not located within the Old Towne Orange National Register Historic District, and therefore, is not subject to the Secretary of Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Rehabilitation. The project area is located within the Chapman University Specific Plan. For projects located within the Specific Plan area that are outside the Old Towne Orange National Register Historic District, the Specific Plan directs that the Site Plan Review process include review by the Old Town Preservation Association (OTPA), the Orange Barrio Historical Society (OBHS), as well as public involvement consisting of one or more of the following: a) community organization meeting; b) "neighbor to neighbor" meeting; c) small neighborhood meeting; d) "neighbor to neighbor" newsletter; and e) local newspaper article(s). Pursuant to Specific Plan administrative policy, minutes of the OTPA and OBHS meetings wherein the project was discussed were forwarded to the DRC 10 days prior to the meeting. Attachment No. 2 includes those minutes as well as supplemental minutes of the OPTA meeting that were subsequently submitted to City staff. A neighborhood meeting was held on Monday, May 2, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. at the Argyros Forum on Chapman University's campus. The Site Plan Review process also includes that the plans be reviewed by the Staff Review Committee (SRC) and Design Review Committee (DRC), and that each Committee makes a recommendation to the Community Development Director. The Director may choose to make a decision, in which case a notice of decision is mailed out to all residents, property owners and business owners within the 300 feet of the designated Notification Area (the Chapman University Specific Plan area). In the event of an appeal, the project would be considered by the Planning Commission. If the Director determines that an interpretation or modification to the Specific Plan is required, the Director may alternatively choose not to make a decision and instead forward the project on to the Planning Commission for a decision. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 4, 2005 Page 6 The Specific Plan requires an approved Site Plan prior to issuance of building permits. It notes that Site Plan Review is necessary for several reasons, including the following: 1. To ensure consistency with the Specific Plan, the General Plan and all implementing ordinances. 2. To promote the highest contemporary standards of site design. The Specific Plan authorizes the DRC to review all site plans within the Specific Plan area to consider the variable nature of architectural concepts, construction materials, etc., on a case-by- case basis, and ensure that the projects reflect the highest quality of planning and design, consistent with the design guidelines of the Specific Plan. The DRC shall make findings for all projects based upon the design criteria and guidelines stated above. For this project, the O.M.C. requires the DRC to make the following findings: 1. The project design upholds community aesthetics through the use of an internally consistent, integrated design theme and is consistent with all adopted specific plans, applicable design standards and their required findings, subject to the conditions of approval; and 2. The project is compatible with the surrounding development and neighborhoods since the proposal has been reviewed by the City's Staff Review Committee and Design Review Committee, and all development standards and design guidelines have been met, subject to the conditions of approval. The proposed project is consistent with the permitted uses and general development standards of the Specific Plan. The parking structure extends approximately 22 feet below grade, and will have a low profile that is almost completely below grade. The surface will be topped with the new athletic field. The four exhaust shafts will be located around the edges of the field, outside the jogging track. These 10-foot high vents will be constructed of real or synthetic brick. The applicant notes that exact locations, sizes and designs of the shafts will be determined during final design engineering. The applicant also notes that the exact height and design of the fencing will be determined during final design/engineering. Therefore, staff has included a condition requiring the final design of the shafts and the fencing to be submitted to the DRC for review and approval. A pedestrian mall is planned along the length of the southern edge of the athletic field. The conceptual landscape plan for the pedestrian mall is consistent with the MLP with four exceptions. A secondary gateway, i.e., the East Gateway, is planned on Center Street between Sycamore and Walnut Avenues. The conceptual landscape plan for the secondary gateway is consistent with the MLP with one exception. A total of three plazas are planned for the project area. The first is atop the entrance to the subterranean parking structure. The second is planned adjacent to the southwest edge of the athletic field, which will provide access to the Hutton Sports Center. A third, "Panther Plaza" is planned adjacent to the southern edge of the athletic field that will include a sculpture of the City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 4, 2005 Page 7 Chapman Panther. The conceptual landscape plan for these areas is consistent with the MLP with four exceptions. MLP Page 2 outlines the existing street tree plan, which calls for Liquidambar, commonly known as Sweet Gum, along Walnut Avenue. The conceptual landscape plan for the Walnut Avenue streetscape is consistent with the MLP with one exception. The applicant points out that the landscape plan is conceptual and will require some refinements and adjustments during the construction document stage. Staff's review of the plan identified several inconsistencies with the MLP; therefore, staff has included a condition of approval that final landscape, irrigation and fencing plans consistent with the MLP be submitted for review and approval by the Design Review Committee (DRC). The applicant notes that the proposed subterranean parking structure is modeled after an existing subterranean parking structure topped by an athletic field located on the UCLA campus. The Police Department's Crime Prevention Unit toured the facility and was pleased with the integration of security and design measures that employ defensible space concepts. Attachment No. 3 of the agenda packet contains photographs of the existing structure at UCLA. The Crime Prevention Unit was also satisfied with the proposed lighting level for the parking structure interior. Staff s review of the proposal to replace the six existing 80-foot high athletic field lighting fixtures with four new 110-foot light fixtures identified that they would exceed the maximum allowable light spill onto nearby residences. With regard to aesthetics, staff's concern is that an increase in the pole height would create a visual impact on properties in the vicinity that are too far away to be visually impacted by the existing 80-foot high lighting fixtures. Staff notes that one of the mitigation measures in the Specific Plan EIR related to visual impacts states, Development shall be responsive to the aesthetic expectations of the surrounding community by designing and locating facilities in a manner that preserves and enhances desirable features of local and neighborhood areas and promotes their sense of identity." Staff requested that the applicant submit a photometric plan using six light poles measuring a maximum of 80 feet, and incorporating the new green generation light technology that the applicant proposed to use for the 110-foot high fixtures. The green generation lighting is an improved to the TLC lighting, as green generation lighting has 50% less glare and spill than the TLC lighting. The applicant subsequently submitted two additional athletic field lighting scenarios. The first scenario proposes six new 80-foot high lighting fixtures, while the second proposes three new 80-foot high lighting fixtures as well as two new 90-foot high fixtures. Both scenarios are within the maximum allowed light spill on nearby residential properties. The applicant has advised that either scenario is acceptable, as both achieve the necessary illumination levels on the athletic field; however, their preference is for the scenario with 90-foot poles as it poses less obstruction to spectators. Staff has included a condition requiring maximum 80-foot high poles with lighting fixtures with a maximum spill on residential properties of 0.5 footcandles. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 4, 2005 Page 8 Kris Olsen, Associate Vice President of Facilities Management and Campus Planning for Campus University for Chapman University presented a photograph depicting a fixture using green generating lighting as well as a fixture using TLC, and noted the green generating lighting has much less glare so should have less impact to those viewing them from a distance, i.e., residents. Mr. Olsen pointed out that the existing field lights have even more spill and glare than the TLC, so a change to the green generation lights would be a vast improvement. Member Califf acknowledge that in addition to the issue of light spill on adjacent residences, there is also the issue of perception from locations further away. Ms. Chaffin further reported that the applicant notes that the actual size, type and style of scoreboard will vary from that shown in the submittal package. The package does not include any other type of proposed signage. Staff has included a condition requiring that final design of the scoreboard and/or other project signage is subject to review and approval by the DRC or the Community Development Director, pursuant to the provisions of the Specific Plan. An EIR was prepared for the Chapman University Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 that covers the campus and its future expansion. If the City, upon review of the environmental checklist as part of the Site Plan review application, finds that a subsequent project is consistent with the Specific Plan, the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and the mitigation measures contained in the EIR, no further environmental consideration is necessary, with the exception of demolition, relocation or substantial modification of contributing historic structures. The EIR for the Chapman University Specific Plan includes a mitigation measure related to parking (Transportation Mitigation Measure No. 16), which indicates, "As new parking structures and/or parking lots are considered, the traffic circulation evaluation must be updated to ensure that there are no additional impacts beyond the assumptions of the Final EIR, such as impacts on neighboring residential uses." The applicant submitted a traffic analysis that was reviewed and deemed acceptable by the City's Traffic Division, subject to certain conditions, which will be included in the SRC's recommendation to the Community Development Director. The Staff Review Committee (SRC) has reviewed the project for compliance with the aforementioned criteria. As of the writing of this staff report, SRC is awaiting data that staff requested of the applicant regarding construction air quality model results showing that construction emissions do not exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance. Once this information is provided, the SRC will review it for acceptability, make an environmental determination, and forward its recommendation on to the Community Development Director, as environmental determinations are not the purview of the Design Review Committee. Staff recommends the DRC recommend approval of project, subject to the following conditions: 1. Final landscape, irrigation and fencing plans consistent with the Chapman University Master Landscape Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Design Review Committee. 2. Final design of the exhaust shafts shall be submitted for review and approval by the Design Review Committee. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 4, 2005 Page 9 3. Athletic field lights are limited to maximum height of 80-feet with a maximum light spill on residential properties of 0.5 footcandles. 4. Final design of scoreboard and/or other project signage is subject to review and approval by the Design Review Committee or the Community Development Director, pursuant to the provisions of the Specific Plan. Member Woollett asked how cars will get in & out during special events, and Ken Ryan of EDAW, a consultant for Chapman University, noted that the access point is from Walnut, and CU's Public Safety officers direct traffic for special events such as football games. Member Woollett noted that most of the aesthetics of this project is landscaping, and Mr. Ryan briefly went over the landscape plan, but noted that the final design is still being prepared and will come back to DRC. Member Wheeler asked what materials one will see as they enter the parking structure. Mr. Olsen indicated a mix of the same type of bricks used elsewhere on campus will be used at the grand staircase on the south end, but it will just be concrete at the other entrances. Member Wheeler suggested using brick along the walls instead of concrete. Member Wheeler asked about the locations of the exhaust fans, as he was concerned about noise. Mr. Olsen explained that the fans will be at the basement (Bl) level, and they will not run continuously, but as needed based on the CO sensors. The noise consultant indicates that the maximum noise these units will emit at the property line is 46 db, and the City's maximum allowed db is 50 at night and 55 during the day. Mr. Olsen also noted that at the north and south ends, there will be a five-foot wide grating to allow natural light all the way down to the basement level, and that will also provide natural ventilation. Member Wheeler noted that the grand staircase opens onto a parking space, and Mr. Olsen indicated that space would be deleted from the plans. Member Califf asked if there are any control devices for the structure such as an swing arm at the entry, to which Mr. Olsen replied that there are no such devices, but there will be an electronics system that lets drivers know if the each level is full or not. Members Wheeler and Califf both supported the five-pole lighting scenario with two poles at 90 feet and three poles at 80 feet. A motion was made by Committee Member Wheeler, to recommend approval of the project with the following findings (two) and conditions (four): Findings 1. The project design upholds community aesthetics through the use of an internally consistent, integrated design theme and is consistent with all adopted specific plans, applicable design standards and their required findings, subject to the conditions of approval; and City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 4, 2005 Page 10 2. The project is compatible with the surrounding development and neighborhoods since the proposal has been reviewed by the City's Staff Review Committee and Design Review Committee, and all development standards and design guidelines have been met, subject to the conditions of approval. Conditions Final landscape, irrigation and fencing plans consistent with the Chapman University Master Landscape Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Design Review Committee. 2. Final design of the exhaust shafts, elevator tower, and public entrances/walkways to the subterranean parking structure shall be submitted for review and approval by the Design Review Committee. 3. Final design of scoreboard and/or other project signage is subject to review and approval by the Design Review Committee or the Community Development Director, pursuant to the provisions of the Specific Plan. SECOND: Joe Woollett AYES: Jon Califf, Craig Wheeler, and Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSENT: None RECUSED: Donnie Dewees. MOTION CARRIED City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 4, 2005 Page 11 3. DRC No. 3987-OS - TABLIER INVESTMENT, INC. Proposal to construct an approximately 7,490 sq. ft. custom residence on a 17,311 sq. ft. vacant lot within Hilicrest Estates. Project is being reviewed for compliance with the City's Residential Infill Guidelines. 3544 East Woodbine Road Staff Contact: Sherman Jones, AICP, Associate Planner DRC Action: Final Determination The item was introduced by Dan Ryan, Senior Planner. He noted the project was atwo-story residence with a contemporary design, featuring a Hip Roof. Staff is recommending the project for compliance with the City's Infill Guidelines. The project is compatible with the scale and mass of surrounding development. It preserves community aesthetics and consistent design theme. The applicant, Sassan Mackay, thanked the City and the DRC for all the work that had been done for the project on his behalf. Mr. Mackay stated that they hoped to begin construction soon before the rainy season began. Committee Member Wheeler stated that he was concerned about the lack of consistency in the design, and wasn't sure he had a picture of an overall theme or style. He was somewhat troubled by the trim-bands around the windows, they change a lot and seem to be squeezed in a lot of places. Other places they disappear because there just doesn't seem to be room for them. He felt that a higher quality of treatment for the windows is needed. The applicant said he would bring it up with the architect/designer and would do whatever was necessary to comply with the committee's recommendations. Mr. Wheeler felt that the whole project seemed "very jumpy" and didn't follow the consistency and thought that had gone into some many other houses in the immediate area. Mr. Sassan said that the roof had to be trimmed in order to comply with requests by the Homeowners Association. Also there were many comments made by the adjacent property owners that required compliance. Chair Califf assured the applicant that the DRC was not telling him "what" to do, rather they were comments that (within the constraints of the Homeowners Association) that should be reviewed with the architect/designer. Mr. Califf stated that he did not believe there was anything within the project that the applicant would be required to change and come back, rather they were comments that should be important from a design perspective, and perhaps a little more consistency in the detailing should be reviewed. Chair Califf noted there were not specific conditions of approval (other than the Standard Conditions of Approval mentioned in the Staff Report). Mr. Wheeler made the recommendation that the window trim treatment be cleaned up, and to try to simplify the port corchere roof so that the unusual intersection be eliminated. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 4, 2005 Page 12 A motion was made by Committee Member Jon Califf to approve the project as submitted. 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 May 4, 2005 Page 13 4. DRC No. 3989-OS - SHURGARD MINI-STORAGE Review of site, building, and landscaping plans for a redevelopment of a portion of mini- storage facility. 623 W. Collins Avenue Staff Contact: Christopher Carnes, Senior Planner DRC Action: Final Determination Approved on Consent Calendar with Staff Conditions and Landscape Notes) A motion was made by Committee Member Joe Woollett to approve the project as submitted. SECOND: Craig Wheeler 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 May 4, 2005 Page 14 5. DRC No. 3990-OS - CINCO DE TIERRA RESIDENCE Demolition of 365 sq. ft. of non-permitted additions and the construction of a new 400 sq. ft. addition, with an increase in roof height, and exterior modifications fora 1910 Bungalow. 178 S. Pixley Street (Old Towne Historic District) Staff Contact: Sherman Jones, Associate Planner DRC Action: Recommendation to Planning Commission Daniel Ryan, Senior Planner, introduced the item. He noted that there were quite a few additions to the property that were built over time without the benefit of permits. So the original records indicate that the building was a certain size, so the Staff Review Committee began at that point. The applicant is removing/demolishing the non-approved additions, and will be adding similar square footage to make one uniform building. Part of the project includes increasing the roof height to have the span incorporate a similar square footage. The applicant did discover that the original building had board and bat siding. The site itself had no parking, and in redesigning the project the applicant is adding a parking space. The City has asked that landscaping be provided, the paving from the parkway be removed, and a parking space adjacent to the residence be provided. Staff had concerns about the level of detail provided on the plans, and understands that the DRC prefers to have the level of detail on the actual plans so that they understand exactly what is to take place. Mr. Ryan stated that it was his understanding that the applicant would like to do that, but the applicant was hoping he could go through the zoning administrator and the Planning Commission before he had to undertake that level of detail. Mr. Ryan explained to the applicant that there was a level of detail that is expected for DRC review. The project will require variances and adjustments for open space. The applicant is proposing to widen the front porch, which will encroach on the front setback. Staff is not in favor of this and feels it should be kept within the existing dimensions. Chair Califf stated that the Committee acknowledged that the project would be primarily demolition as opposed to remodel. Mr. Woollett stated that another issue would be existing materials, and to what extent the applicant may be required to use those existing materials. Mr. Castaneda stated that, with the guidance he had received from Staff, he would be using the same type of materials on the exterior. Mr. Woollett explained to the applicant that the term reconstruction" was a formal term used by the Department of the Interior, which meant that there was no necessity of using any of the existing materials. The applicant indicated that he would be "rebuilding the building" so that it looked like it was originally. The DRC wanted to clearly understand exactly what those materials would be. Mr. Woollett gave the example of the windows; will they be wood double-hung windows? The applicant stated yes. Mr. Woollett stated that the DRC would need to know exactly how the window would be trimmed, as it is not shown currently on the plans. Mr. Castaneda stated that he had photographed the existing windows and is having them duplicated exactly as they are now. Committee Member Dewees stated that his biggest concern was that he was unaware of any of this information that the applicant was speaking about. The plans before the DRC are incomplete and inaccurate, and materials are missing. Given the mistakes and unprofessional documentation, he did not feel confident that the level of detail in the plans was accurate either. He felt that there was a lot of City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 4, 2005 Page 15 work to be done in terms of details before the DRC could even act on this project. He did not feel that this was the time and place to go through the details, inasmuch as the project was still poorly defined and documented. Mr. Ryan stated that in the cases where the City reviewed plans that involved demolition, then the City wants to know at the earliest whether a building inspector is required to review the project and make a determination as to whether the building could be repaired or does it need to be rebuilt? The integrity of the building is such that if a roof is removed, will it impact the rest of the building and become a total demolition by default. These issues need to be cleared up prior to review by the DRC. Mr. Woollett stated that he was interested in what the applicant really wanted to do. There may be more flexibility to this project than he realized and the end project would be better. He stated that the DRC, if this was a total demolition and reconstruction, would want the plans for the building that used similar finish materials and in a similar style, and that met the limitations of the land related to the lot size and the setback requirements. Mr. Ryan stated that hopefully no portions of the original footprint of the building would be demolished, or it would enter an entirely new set of rules and regulations. Mr. Woollett stated that he wanted to give the applicant some clear guidance so that he could go back to the drawing board with some confidence and then return to the DRC with plans that would hopefully be approved. Mr. Ryan stated that this was new ground for the City - no reconstructions, pease, had been done before. He believes that the proposed size of the building for the time period it represents is appropriate. He believes that they could look at the building has having had additions over a long period of time, and the project would be a reconstruction to improve its form for the period it fits. Mr. Ryan stated that parking was one issue, and the City viewed it as a positive step that the applicant was providing one parking space. Chair Califf stated that it did present a problem, because he wasn't sure the DRC had the authority to call it a reconstruction with a demolition, because then the applicant would have to conform to the conditions of the City's Infill Guidelines. Mr. Ryan stated that possibly the solution was that if the original form of the footprint of the building has to be retained and enough of the original porch and front of the building, then the issue becomes how much of the rest of it can you save in order to be an addition, etc. Then the question is do you require a new roof that is large enough to carry the entire new structure. Mr. Ryan stated that he would like to be really clear, prior to commencing work, about the condition of the building and what could be saved, etc. A motion was made by Committee Member Joe Woollett to continue the project. SECOND: Craig Wheeler 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 May 4, 2005 Page 16 6. DRC No. 3995-OS - NGUYEN RESIDENCE New single-family residential in-fill development. 556 N. Pine Street Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, Senior Planner DRC Action: Final Determination Approved on Consent Calendar with clarification on roof the to be red clay s-tile.) A motion was made by Committee Member Craig Wheeler to approve the project as submitted. 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 May 4, 2005 Page 17 7. DRC No. 3996-OS -THE IRVINE COMPANY Santiago Hills lI/East Orange Planned Communities Design Guidelines. Preliminary review of Design Guidelines for the Santiago Hills II and East Orange residential developments Staff Contact: Edward Knight, Principal Planner DRC Action: Receive presentation from The Irvine Company on the proposed residential design guidelines. Formal review of the proposed design guidelines is set for the May 18, 2005 DRC agenda. This was a presentation only. No action taken. Committee Member Jon Califf moved to adjourn the meeting. SECOND: Joe Woollett AYES: Jon Califf, Donnie Dewees, Craig Wheeler, and Joe Woollett NOES : None ABSENT: None RECUSED: None MOTION CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m.