Loading...
05-17-2006 DRC MinutesCITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES -FINAL May 17, 2006 Committee Members Present: Jon Califf Donnie DeWees Craig Wheeler Joe Woollett Staff in Attendance: Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager Anne Fox, Contract Staff Planner Daniel Ryan, Senior Planner Sonal Thakur, Assistant Planner Howard Morris, Senior Landscape Coordinator Mari Burke, Recording Secretary Committee Member Absent: Bill Cathcart Administrative Session - 5:00 P.M. The Committee met for an administrative session beginning at 5:00 p.m. The meeting adjourned at approximately 8:57 p.m. Regular Session - 5:30 P.M. Chair Califf announced the following two Agenda Items as Consent Items per the concurrence of the Committee Members. 1. DRC No. 4013-OS -KAISER FINAL LANDSCAPE PLANS 7. DRC No. 4094-06 - ST. MARY MAGDALENE FENCE City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 17, 2006 Page 2 1. DRC No. 4013-OS -KAISER FINAL LANDSCAPE PLANS The applicant is requesting approval of final landscape and irrigation plans. 4201 West Chapman Avenue Staff Contact: Anne E. Fox, (714) 744-7229, afox@cityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination Committee Member Woollett made a motion to consent this item subject to the irrigation and planning notes being provided on the drawing. SECOND: Jon Califf AYES: Jon Califf, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Bill Cathcart MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 17, 2006 Page 3 2. DRC No. 4027-OS -SALEM LUTHERAN CHURCH Applicant is proposing to redevelop the Salem Lutheran Church facilities with a new 11,000 sq. ft. sanctuary building and 11,000 sq. ft. of offices and classrooms, and the expansion of the church/school facility by using a residence located adjacent to the existing church school facility as apre-school. 6500 E. Santiago Canyon Road (within the boundaries of the Orange Park Acres Specific Plan) Staff Contact: Christopher Carnes, (714) 744-7225, ccarnes@cityoforange.org DRC Action: Preliminary Review Christopher Carnes, Senior Planner, stated that this is a preliminary review and conducted an overview of the project prior to introducing the project architect. This project is a redevelopment of an existing church facility and the applicant is asking for comments. The existing church facilities will be demolished with a plan to build a new 11,000 sq. ft. sanctuary building and 11,000 sq. ft. of offices and classrooms. The parking lots to the south of the facility will be redeveloped along with a proposal to use the existing grass field for temporary overflow parking. The project does include incorporating an existing residence into the church school facilities and converting it into a preschool. The site improvements for that include extending the existing parking lot behind the residence and also adding a playground and more hard scape behind the residence. There is a shared drive from Frank Street on the south side used to access the existing facilities. Mr. Carnes advised that the project is subject to the design criteria contained in the City's Orange Park Acres Specific Plan. This plan encourages development of a rural characteristic i.e. natural building materials, low, 1-story structures, open rail fencing, avoiding perimeter walls, etc. Douglas Pancake, principal and owner of Irwin-Pancake Architects, conducted a comprehensive review of the campus master plan using illustrative storyboards. He prefaced his review stating there was a great deal of analysis done looking at the existing challenges that the site of the church is experiencing along with the impact that it's imposing on the neighborhood in terms of drop off and pick up. With the outcome of the analysis they ventured into the proposed design scheme which they believe readily addresses the issues that confront the neighborhood. They plan to implement a new parking and stacking design for drop off and pickup which he believes will minimize the stacking on Orange Park Blvd. and perhaps also onto Santiago Canyon. He noted that the Fowler House was gifted to the Salem Lutheran Church and they desired to convert it to a preschool. Committee Member Woollett asked if there was already an infant daycare facility there and asked for confirmation that they were just looking to relocate it into the new facility. The response was affirmative and that there was no plan to adjust the current student population. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 17, 2006 Page 4 Mr. Pancake stated that they had received a great deal of input from the neighbors, some encouraging, some less encouraging, and they had responded to a great many issues-includingtheparkingandtrafficconcerns. He highlighted the sanctuary and the worship center includes a 757-seat sanctuary, music room,choir room, adult education classrooms, an administrative area and a childcare area. ThebuildinghasbeendividedandsomemodificationstotherearofthestructurewerecompletedtosatisfyFireDepartmentconcerns. The Fowler House, which will be the new preschool, will maintain its residential characteristicswithparkingintherear. The current Salem school parking lot is being revised to make use of some of the new space. The athletic field is being maintained and will have fire truck access. Robert Brooks, Salem Lutheran Church, added commentary about the landscaping stating:1) They attempted to intensify the landscape in a few areas, especially along Frank Lane, to soften the edge. 2) For the most part they are maintaining the trees along Santiago. 3) They added a few trees to the back side of the building. 4) Existing interior campus trees would be maintained. 5) Existing trees in front of the Fowler House would also be maintained. One of the concerns that had been expressed was sound and the concentration of play activitiesandwhatthatmightgenerateintermsofincreasedsoundalongFrankLane. Mr. Pancakediscussedthisconcernandhowtheyplantoaddressitwiththecreationofasoundwall. Thewallevolvedfromamasonrywallwithacaptomasonrypillarswithacousticacrylicorglasspanels. There is a ball wall which functions as a buffer for a majority of the play area. He noted there is a lot of setback movement in the wall and pointed out how the landscape is integratedintoit. Ms. Roseberry, Planning Manager, interjected Staff is still in the midst of looking at the noise studies that have been conducted and are awaiting receipt of an additional one. She stated that for aesthetic purposes the DRC should look at the wall construction as it is being presented;however, there may be changes introduced on the next round as a result of findings in thestudies. Mr. Pancake continued the review of the Fowler House noting: 1) The drop off and pick up will occur to the east of the building. 2) The plan is to use a residential style front door. 3) The classroom spaces are designed around California childcare licensing standards, Title 22 for efficient staffing. 4) The existing kitchen is being converted to a teachers lounge. 5) Each classroom has a child's toilet room. 6) Classrooms at the rear of the building have immediate access to the play area. 7) The play areas are serviced by a child's toilet room as well. 8) The upstairs will only be used for storage and as a mechanical area. 9) The front elevations maintain the current characteristic and will have some upgradesincludingstucco) for 1-hour rating compliance. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 17, 2006 Page 5 The sanctuary design highlights included: 1) The sanctuary is shell shaped. 2) It has a 2-story vertical space inside. 3) Parking is provided so as the member comes up the walkway they focus on the entry.4) The layout includes a plaza (The Fellowship Plaza) for congregation meetings afterworshipservices. 5) A circular site bench which focuses the approach to the sanctuary.6) A fixed stage. 7) Choir bleachers. 8) A choir room opening directly on to the stage.9) A storage area. 10) A conference room which can be utilized by the community at large.ll) A modest book store. 12) A prayer room. 13) A lunch room that is being recreated which will look out onto the athletic field as well aslookingouttotheplayequipmentarea. 14) A shade structure. 15) A breezeway which is required for fire access. 16) A church office. 17) Classroom buildings. 18) Elegant use of stained glass. He believes they combined a number of architectural styles. Different views of the elevation fordifferentvantagepointswereprovided. Sawtooth or jagged positioning of the building as youapproachfromSantiagoCanyonisintendedtocreateinterestinthestructureandconformstothesetbacks. A great deal of trees will be used for softening and will be shown in the landscapingplans. The major mass of the building is primarily in the center of the site. The applicant is asking forsomeleniencyintheheightrequirementastheyareshowing39' projection. The portion whichexceedsthe32' limit is very well within the interior of the site. They have done studies to flattenit; however, the applicant is pleased with the elevation as it is being presented and would like toproceedwithit. View simulations were provided. Mr. Pancake summarized stating that they have gone to great extents to understand the currentimpactoftheircampusandwhattheirchurchandschoolisimposinguponthecommunity.They've anticipated the issues and understand the traffic, parking and aesthetic issues and havedesignedaccordinglytomitigatethem. They are asking for an increase in the seating capacity inthesanctuary; however, they are spreading the weekday use of the facility across a greater areaandfeeltheyareminimizingtheimpactonthecommunity. The public was invited to comment and provided their inputs as follows: Tom Davidson address on file, commented that the use of the Fowler House is being spread overtheneighborhoodandhefelttakingofthehouseisadangerousprecedencetobeset. Theresidenceasitwassoldwasa4893sq. ft. house. With the additions there will be a 2400 sq. ft. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 17, 2006 Page 6 net gain for the school. He felt this is inappropriate since the school was to remain as it wasoriginallyconstructed. Christine Rosenow address on file, lives just south of the school where the playground issituated. She stated she would be greatly affected by the Fellowship Plaza and the play area.Further, her opinion is the size, location and design of the facility will have a detrimental affectontheOPAcommunity; especially in terms of noise levels. She stated the size and numbers ofroomsinthesanctuaryandthemeetingplacewouldinviteeveningandweekendeventsthattodatehavenotoccurredregularly. Locating the facility close to Santiago Canyon Road pushestheparkinglotandplaygroundnoiseclosertoherhomeandthehomesofherneighbors. Theincreaseinthenumberofclassroomswillallowforanincreaseinthenumberofdaycarestudentsfrom81to105. Committee Member DeWees then asked for clarification of the student population. Ms.Rosenow responded that per the C.U.P. the maximum amount allowed at one time is 81. Herfearisthatduetoanincreaseintheamountofspace, eventually the population will increase to105. Ms. Roseberry interjected that any increase in the current student population would requireanamendmenttotheConditionalUsePermit. Linda Cunningham address on file, resides directly behind where the new basketball court isplanned. With the planned design and expansion she is concerned about an increase in lighting.She believes they already have too much lighting for a rural community. OPA is supposed tohaveambientlighting. Night activities will result in more car lights, more intense event lightingandmoresecuritylighting. Although they realize the need for safety she cited the OPA SpecificPlanwhichstates "no lighting except in landscaping" and she stressed the need to maintain thebeautyofthecommunityanditsruralness. Marty Poort address on file, addressed the aesthetics, desiSheprovidedcopiesofvisualstakenfromtheSalemwebsite and ph tographs t ken of theresidentialcommunity. She pointed out that the tallest existing building on the current site is the gymnasium which isonly29' at its peak and that the proposed sanctuary with a pinnacle of 39' would be 23% abovewhatispermittedbyCitycode. She added that although the applicants refer to the proposed structure as ranch style, none of theranchstylebuildingsthatpresentlyappearinthecommunityhavemassiveslopingrooflinesandhigh, continuous walls. She spoke about the potential impacts the increased height would haveontheviewsfromthewestandstatedthatshecouldforeseeproblemswiththeslopeonthenorthsideduetoroofrunoff. She felt that a lot of water and debris would be shed onto Santiago andthetrails. Although she agreed that Salem is in need of a new sanctuary, she asked that the Committee sendtheapplicantsbacktothedrawingboardtoredesignasmaller, shorter, less enclosed plan for theproject. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 17, 2006 Page 7 Laurie Cesina address on file, is a 20 year resident of OPA and provided photo boardsillustratingtwogateways (one from Santiago and one from Chapman). She stated Frank Lanebeingacul-de-sac has only one way in and one way out. It has a horse crossing and will be theonly5-lane roadway in OPA. Ms. Cesina also pointed out that Salem has an illuminated sign onSantiagowhichposesnoproblem; however, they have also installed an illuminated sign onFrankLanethatshinesintothebackyardofaresidenceonGrayLane. She believes that is notacceptable. Liberty Grayson address on file, resides on Frank Lane and wanted to comment on the soundwall. His concerns are the glass may result in potentially blinding vision from various locationsduetotheglareandthatthewallwillnotbeabarriertovehicularnoise. Chair Califf reminded the attendees that although landscape, design, layout and communityaestheticsareallpartoftheDRCpurview, strictly speaking, the traffic and acoustics are not.The Committee would concentrate on providing advice in their areas of expertise. Committee Member Woollett asked how the proposed lighting would be different than it is now.The response was that it needs to meet City of Orange standards in terms of parking lot safety sotheywouldprovideonefootcandlelevels. There will be security lighting and no lighting on theathleticfield. The standards will include a variety of pole lights and also some wall mountedfixturesforsafety. At this time he is envisioning 12' standards. The minimum one foot candle is an Orange Police Dept. requirement. Chair Califf interjected to keep the light standards at 12' orless, spaced in a way to be decorative. Committee Member Woollett stated they are interested inthelookofthefixturessotheywouldliketoseethemincludedaspartofthenextreview. Committee Member Woollett then commented that he thought they had done a wonderful job in getting the height back from the streets. He clarified the code requirement is 32' and the applicant acknowledged exceeding the height limit in a very small area. Planner Carnes addedthattheapplicationisforadditionalbuildingheight-going from 32' to 39'. CommitteeMemberWoollettthensaidtheDRCdoesn't rule on the height. Ms. Roseberry interjected thattheDRCwouldgivearecommendationontheheightiftheyfeltitposedanaestheticproblem. A brief discussion of signs concluded with the applicant stating they would be enhancing the existing sign and they are assuming there would be a sign permit for the graphic art which has not been prepared. Further, there will be a new logo and a new look to be consistent with the new sanctuary. It was agreed the sign plan would be brought in separately. Although this is a traffic issue, Committee Member Woollett asked the applicant about the publiccommentrelativetotheroadwidth. The applicant responded there is a 60' wide driveway andthewidthisn't changing. They have removed a fire hydrant and they are pulling back a corner to provide more access from Orange Park Blvd. so the turn would be accomplished easier. The combination of materials used on the sound wall was then addressed with Committee Member Woollett asking the applicant if they could provide their reasoning for the material selection indicated, from an appearance standpoint. The applicant stated they may not be usingglass; however, it will be something that is see-through with sound reduction being the primary City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 17, 2006 Page 8 goal. Initially, they started with a solid wall and evolved to the current design which meets anumberofimportantcriteria-rural aesthetics with the use of rural vernacular materials,incorporated a lot of movement/rhythm so it's not one monolithic, linear type structure,integrated landscaping, coordination with the paving design and provides vantage points forpoliceandsecurity. Robert Brooks added that the wall is still in the concept stage. Chair Califf inquired what is happening grade wise in the sanctuary and if they had any latitude to push the floor down. The applicant response was they did a number of studies in an attempt tolowertheroof; however they flattened the building and were unappealing. They want to haveclearviewsforeachpersoninthetheatre. They could potentially create a moat but perhaps itwouldcreatemoreproblemsthanitwouldsolve. Chair Califf then stated that trees currently dominate the streetscape so the challenge before the applicant is to not have the sound wall be a visual barricade. He suggested that at each entrypointtheyusethelandscapetotheiradvantagetobreakuptheviewsandcreatethesamerurallook. More landscape is better. Included in this landscape plan should be Frank Lane. Mr. Pancake stated that an important consideration for Frank Lane was the provision for emergency vehicle access during pick up and drop off. Their Traffic Engineer has gone to greatlengthstocreateabypasslanewhichwouldbeusedforthataccess. One of the residents is extremely sensitive to this issue so that was the reason for the design. Frank Lane is not beingwidened, only redesigned to minimize stacking and provide emergency access as well as dual use during the weekend church services and an efficient means to drop off and pick up. Ms. Roseberry interjected that the City is still working with the applicant on the egress and ingressissuesandtheyhavenotyetboughtoffonanyplan. Committee Member DeWees asked for clarification as to the location of the 32' elevation and questioned the color choice. He also suggested using different materials and a different top cap. The court use was then questioned by Committee Member DeWees, specifically, would they beusedatnightthusrequiringlightingandcreatingnoise (concerns expressed by the local residents). Chair Califf would like to know what the residents could expect in terms of hours of use when there could be children on the playground. The applicant responded that this was defined in the original C.U.P. and they are not looking to change the original application, nor are they looking to change the student occupancy rate. Regarding the lighting, there is a goodpossibilitytheywillbefocusingthelightingbackintotheirsite, especially along the edge. Chair Califf stated the committee would be very interested in what light fixtures are planned. The applicant responded they would be happy to generate a plan that shows where the illumination would be and what fixtures are used. Committee Member DeWees expressed he would love to see a glass top cap on the sanctuary and perhaps use of a solid stone versus a combination of plaster and stone in the sanctuary. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 17, 2006 Page 9 Committee Member Wheeler asked if there was anything they could do to integrate colors intothepavementinthenewparkingareaonthewestside, if the sanctuary was the only area wheretheyplannedtousemetalroofingandiftheyweredoinganysoundseparationaroundtheFowlerbuildingtoprotecttheadjoiningresidentsfromnoisecreatedbythechildrenontheplayground.He suggested they use alternative materials around the windows, look at fascia treatment on thesanctuaryandtryusingaflat, leaded or stained skylight which would cut down the heightsomewhat. The applicant responded they will go back and think about the suggestion regarding the pavement in the parking area; however, they need to maintain a smooth surface. There is somemetalroofonthelowflatstructureintherear. They are providing a sound wall that starts at thesoutheastcornerthatcomesaround. It is 8 ft. on the church side, 10 ft. on the resident's side,dropping down to 6 feet. It is a decorative, opaque, block wall with a pretty dense tree row alongittocreateavisualseparationbetweentheFowlerhouseandtheresident. Chair Califf suggestedthatperhapstheyconsiderjoggingthewallinandoutsotheneighborsdon't have an unbroken,expansive wall. Instead, some of the trees would be visible, mitigating some of the expansewithoutaffectingthesound. Mr. Pancake then stated they would expect to continue to developthewindowtreatments. Committee Member Wheeler asked how they planned to handle the run off which was a concernexpressedbyoneofthepublicattendees. The response was they will have gutters and areworkingwithaCivilEngineerwhoisdoingawaterqualitymanagementprogram. Althoughtheyweren't prepared to discuss it today Mr. Pancake stated there was nothing extraordinary that was going to occur in terms of a drainage plan. Committee Member DeWees asked if there was an existing problem with drainage across the equestrian trail and the response was "no". Committee Member Wheeler also asked about the public concern raised relative to the glarefactorfromthesoundwall. The applicant responded they could use anon-reflective material buttheywouldneedtobecarefulaboutthevisibility. They are trying to minimize the amount ofpanelstheywoulduseemphasizingthatmorethanhalfofthewallisopaque. They will exploretheuseofanon-glare product working with the Police Department to ensure it meets their needsandisashighaspossibletomitigatesound. Chair Califf asked about the location of staff parking. The applicant indicated there have been numerous discussions about parking and they would be using a configuration frequently used atchurchesandfestivalareas. A visual aid was used to show the Committee the proposed layout. Chair Califf suggested the introduction of tree pockets within the parameters of the dual use areas (parking lot and playground). These would help with the aesthetics and noise. Planner Carnes asked the DRC Members if they had any comments regarding the project'scompliancewiththepoliciesandgoalsoftheOrangeParkAcresSpecificPlan. He furtherexplainedthateventhoughthePlandidnotspecificallyaddressinstitutionaluses, its policies andgoalsstillappliedtotheproposal. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 17, 2006 Page 10 Several Committee Members commented on sections that were compliant and touched on areas of concern i.e. the roof coloring and massing. Chair Califf commented on the sound wall, offering suggestions to improve the views. The applicant was asked when they expected to return. Mr. Pancake responded they would like to be back soon and thanked the Committee for their valuable inputs; many which hadn't occurred to them and could be easily implemented. In conclusion he stated none of the issues the Committee raised were insurmountable and they understood the massing and roof color were sensitive issues. They will consider different options and propose them in the next session. Chair Califf reiterated there is no action for the DRC to vote on. He concluded with an admonishment for the applicants to remember what they heard from the residents and do everything they could to address their concerns. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 17, 2006 Page 11 3. DRC No. 4047-OS - RICHARDSON GARAGE Applicant is proposing to construct a 960 sq. ft., detached, commercial garage adjacent to an existing office building (a contributing 1904 Hip Roofed Cottage). Property is located at 419 S. Glassell Street, within the Old Towne Historic District Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, (714) 744-7224, dryan@cityoforange.org DRC Action: Recommendation to Planning Commission Planner Dan Ryan indicated the applicant was rethinking the project and discussed with Staff a potential zone change for the property. Chair Califf encouraged any public attendees that wanted to speak to this project to contact Mr. Ryan as to when it would appear on the agenda again. Chair Califf made a motion to continue DRC No. 4047-OS at the applicant's request. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Jon Califf, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Bill Cathcart MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 17, 2006 Page 12 4. DRC No. 4058-OS -JUSTICE BUILDING Applicant is proposing an addition to an existing residential structure converting it to a commercial use including related site improvements. 537 North Glassell Street Staff Contact: Anne Fox, (714) 744-7229, afox@cityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination A project overview was provided by Planner Anne Fox during which she explained the project before the Committee involves both a design review application as well as a minor site plan review. If the conversion is possible without any exterior improvements to the property it is typically looked at by the Director, Community Development, and a minor site plan approval is obtained to ensure it meets code and is compatible with the neighborhood and zoning requirements. Since the project involves certain improvements and an addition, it falls under the purview of the DRC. The project architect added it is a very straightforward project being proposeda basic conversion of an existing home into professional offices. The client, Mr. & Mrs. Justice, want to maintain the house look. The addition is to enlarge the office space for their use. They will be occup@g it; it will not be sublet. The front door will be moved to the side. The existing driveway will be removed and accent paving will be done to an outdoor porch area. The monument sign would be cast concrete. The font sizes to be used could be easily provided upon request. Chair Califf asked for public input. No public input was offered. Committee Member Woollett questioned how the business is accessed by the public. The applicant response was this is an Internet based business thus foot traffic is expected to be minimal. Parking will be on the street with access down a paved walkway into the alley entrance. Committee Member DeWees questioned if they really wanted a diagonal scored pattern on the sidewalk, suggesting his preference is simple. The applicant responded they could change it. Committee Member DeWees then asked why they were removing the existing walkway. The applicant response was: to discourage people from coming to the porch and knocking on the front door expecting it to be used. The goal is to have as many architectural hints as to where to go as possible, without using signage that states "use side door". Committee Member Wheeler complimented the architect on their sensitivity to retaining the existing structure. He then commented that there is very little information provided as to what they are doing i.e. it would be easier to follow if the plans specified what's new, what's not. Chair Califf stated it needs to be explicit. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 17, 2006 Page 13 Committee Member Wheeler then suggested that they reconstruct the extended barges so they look like the original ones and not use flat outlookers. The applicant received clarification as to what is meant by a flat outlooker. Chair Califf commented about having one handicap stall that is van accessible and advised the applicant that if it goes to C.S.G. for plan check it would be noticed. The applicant thanked Chair Califf for the advisement. Committee Member Woollett moved to approve DRC Item 4058-OS with the following conditions: 1) The new siding, window, roofing and door treatments match the existing. 2) The final landscape and irrigation plans be submitted to the City for review and approval. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Jon Califf, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Bill Cathcart MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 17, 2006 Page 14 5. DRC No. 4068-06 - HUERTA RESIDENCE Applicant is proposing to construct a 1,576 sq. ft., two-story, second unit, and attached 487 sq. ft. garage, on a 7,500 sq. ft., R2-6 residential lot, that has a 1,223 sq. ft. residence and garage. Project is being reviewed under the City's Residential In-fill Guidelines. 3022 E. Pearl Street Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, (714) 744-7224 _dryan c~cityoforange.org_ DRC Action: Final Determination Senior Historic Planner Dan Ryan provided a project overview per the Staff Report. Sayed Ashizafnia introduced himself as the Design Engineer for the project and stated he has complied with the setback requirements and the height on this project is actually 10' lower than the City requirement. As a contrast to this project he provided photographs of other projects where the height limits have been exceeded. He commented on the location of the garage and the use of landscape. Committee Member Wheeler stated they could have done a different garage/parking configuration which would allow for additional landscape. He stated the house should have a hip roof to match the house in front, the pitch should match and the window treatments should also match. He suggested they consider reversing the location of the master bedroom so the view would be more desirable and they would have more privacy. He also asked for detail on the garage door they will be using. No public comment was provided on this item. A discussion ensued regarding inconsistencies in the drawings i.e. the windows didn't quite match, the roof shows both hip and gable. Committee Member DeWees stated there were also dimensional inaccuracies and the overall quality of the plans were such that he wasn't willing to review them. Chair Califf interjected that where the windows are to be positioned on the floor plan should be accurately reflected on the exterior elevations. Committee Member Woollett asked how the exterior door swings and stated that should be shown on the plans. A discussion of the impact to the neighborhood included an inquiry by Committee Member Woollett about the house next door and the fact that other than it, there are no other single family, 2-story residences in the neighborhood. Planner Ryan indicated he was unable to locate a permit for that residence and there were a few things that in his opinion made it more pronounced. The discussion evolved to attaching the Huerta units so they would appear to have been designed in the same time period and thus they would blend better. Committee Member Woollett added it would allow for a better consolidation of the landscaping areas and the driveway. Committee Member Wheeler suggested they explore having a single covered garage and surface parking spaces where they utilize brick or pavers versus concrete. He pointed out this would also increase the rear yard. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 17, 2006 Page 15 Chair Califf asked for a clarification on how they achieved four parking spaces (50% which need to be enclosed). Planner Ryan provided illustration and commentary as to how this was accomplished. Chair Califf made a motion to continue DRC No. 4068-06 with advisory comments: 1) Use ahip-type roof matching the pitch to the existing unit. 2) The plans agree with one another. 3) Consider an attached scheme to justify a 2-story solution. 4) Provide more landscape specifics which includes paving. 5) A note should be added that an automatic irrigation system is required. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Jon Califf, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: Donnie DeWees ABSENT: Bill Cathcart MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 17, 2006 Page 16 6. DRC No. 4081-06 -DAVID ESPINOSA RESIDENCE Applicant is proposing a new 2-story addition, as well as addition of a family room onto existing first floor. 230 North Flower Street Staff Contact: Sonal Thakur, 714-744-7239, sthakur@cityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination A project overview was provided by Ms. Thakur during which she indicated Staff believes that the proposed second story would disrupt the harmony and character of the neighborhood; therefore they are recommending denial of the second story addition. David Espinoza, the applicant indicated there are two other two-story homes in the immediate neighborhood and his intent is to do a room addition which will be situated to the rear of the house. He is willing to use landscaping to soften the appearance (perhaps Cypress or Palms) on the south side of the house if the Committee feels it's necessary. He is keeping with the same architectural look and would welcome any suggestions to break up the appearance of massing. No public comment was provided. Committee Member Woollett commented how the impact from the street is minimized. Further, they are maintaining the hip roof and the style of the house and are not adding a huge amount of space. He thought it would be improved if a window was added at the top of the stairway. Committee Member Wheeler agreed with Committee Member Woollett and added "the eave detail, window trim detail and all addition features need to match the existing". The applicant stated the family room will be 2-steps down and the floor would be concrete slab which will bring down the height of the second floor elevation. Committee Member DeWees asked if the existing plate height was really 9'4". Committee Member Wheeler stated it would cut down the mass if they brought the first level down to an 8' plate. Committee Member DeWees asked how far away they are from the existing pool. The response was "about 10 feet from the shallow end". The applicant cited that was the reason he didn't want to extend out, as it would have brought him closer to the pool. Committee Member DeWees made a motion to approve this project with the following conditions: 1) The exterior windows and doors must match the existing style and trim. 2) The ceiling height of the new family room should not exceed 8'6". 3) At least one new window (approximately 4' x 4') will be added at the head of the stairway on the second floor. 4) The facia dimensions on the new construction must match the existing. 5) The roof on the addition shall match the existing. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 17, 2006 Page 17 SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Jon Califf, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Bill Cathcart MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 17, 2006 Page 18 7. DRC No. 4094-06 - ST. MARY MAGDALENE FENCE Applicant is proposing to construct a wrought iron fence along side of property. 205 South Glassell Street Staff Contact: Sonal Thakur, 714-744-7239, sthakur@cityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to consent this item subject to the conditions in the Staff Report. SECOND: Joe Wollett AYES: Jon Califf, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Bill Cathcart MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 17, 2006 Page 19 8. DRC No. 4099-06 - MCMULLEN RESIDENCE Applicant is proposing to construct a 598 sq. ft., addition to the side and rear of an existing 1917 one-story Bungalow. Project includes modifications to improve access to the existing detached two-car garage. Property is located at 327 E. Maple Avenue, within the Old Towne Historic District Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, (714) 744-7224, Bryan@cityoforange.org DRC Action: Recommendation to Zoning Administrator Chair Califf recused himself. Senior Historic Planner Dan Ryan provided a project overview per the Staff Report and noted there have already been some changes to the front of this residence that were not original. He stated that there had been a fair amount of discussion about what to do or not to do about that and how far they wanted to make the addition to the rear while also looking at the symmetry involved in the front. The windows will all be recycled and used in the new addition. The streetscape pattern matches. Another issue noted with this project is the existence of a garage that could not be used to park two cars. They have struggled with trying to keep the contributing garage so they looked at redesigning the doors that would make minimal changes to the building yet allow it to be used (with administrative adjustment) as required parking for two enclosed cars. Mr. Ryan added there may have been brick work in the front that was either removed or had stucco applied over it and the applicant is proposing to leave this in place and match the staggered siding on the rest of the building. They are also proposing to install a fireplace on the interior side of the lot. Staff had one comment relative to the fireplace and that is, it needs to be more of the bungalow style. The homeowner added all they are doing is enlarging the family room, the bedrooms and adding a master bedroom. He stated they had two garage doors--one in the front and one in the rear. They plan to keep the one in the back and use an overhead or open-up style in the front. The design of the doors would basically be the same as the existing. Janet Crenshaw, OTPA, complimented the homeowners and stated when she viewed the home that it looks even better than the pictures posted at the library. She likes the fact that the garage doors are going to look like what is already there. She also noted it was mentioned in the library report that the garage is not going to be enlarged and there is precedence for keeping it as is. Committee Member Wheeler suggested adding an uncovered parking space and leaving the garage as is thus eliminating the need to purchase new doors. He also stated he is a little uncomfortable with a false ash door. The homeowner clarified it would not be a pre-fab fireplace. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 17, 2006 Page 20 Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve DRC No. 4099-06 subject to the recommendations in the Staff Report along with the following conditions: 1) Explore the possibility of not using a new double door on the garage; instead, have a single car inside and one outside. 2) The treatment of the extended barges be done in the historic manner. 3) Concrete shoulders be installed on the fireplace. 4) Use a real ash door as appropriate. SECOND:Donnie DeWees AYES:Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES:None ABSTAIN:None ABSENT:Bill Cathcart RECUSED:Jon Califf MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 17, 2006 Page 21 A motion was made by Chair Califf to approve the minutes of the December 7, 2005 and March 15, 2006 meetings as amended, and to adjourn until the next scheduled session. SECOND: Joe Woollett AYES: Jon Califf, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Bill Cathcart MOTION CARRIED.