Loading...
06-15-2005 DRC MinutesCITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES -FINAL June 15, 2005 Committee Members Present: Jon Califf Donnie DeWees Craig Wheeler Joe Woollett Staff in Attendance: Rick Otto, Acting Planning Manager Chris Carnes, Senior Planner Ed Knight, Principal 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 6:45 p.m. Regular Session - 5:30 P.M. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 15, 2005 Page 2 1. DRC No. 3994-OS - DR. THOMAS KARL TSOTSIS Room addition onto a residence located in Old Towne Orange 247 N. Grand Street Staff Contact: Christopher Carnes, Senior Planner DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission Staff Planner, Chris Carnes, reviewed the project as a second story addition to an existing residence with the addition placed primarily to the rear of the structure. The addition is being designed as a "shed" dormer and the building materials are to be the same as the existing structure. Staff recommended approval of the proposal based on the proposed building massing and materials are consistent with "bungalow" designed structures and the structure is compatible in scale and massing with existing residential structures located in the vicinity of the project site. The project does not require a conditional use permit for a second story because the addition is defined as a '/~ story. In response to a question from the audience, Staff explained that the procedure for reviewing the proposal was initial review by Staff for code compliance, DRC review of the building design, scale, massing, and materials for compliance with the Old Towne Design Guidelines, Staff preparation of the environmental document, Staff Review Committee (SRC) review and determination of the environmental document, and final review at a public hearing by the Planning Commission. The SRC review follows the DRC review because the SRC approves the environmental documentation for the project, which is not prepared until after the DRC has found the project in compliance with the City's Old Towne Design Guidelines and compatible with surrounding residential structures. The DRC review concluded that: I) The existing chimney and proposed bedroom windows may need to be revised to comply with building code requirements. 2) The ridgeline may have to be raised to provide a minimum 1' separation between the ridgeline and shed dormer. 3) The plans have to be revised to clearly show all the window trim is to match existing. 4) The proposed facade board has to be removed to expose the rafter ends. 5) The barge boards are to be larger than the rafters (typically minimum 2 by 4). 6) The gable vent is to be enlarged and constructed to match the existing. 7) The DRC also discussed that the rear columns on most Craftsman style homes are simpler in design than columns on the front elevation, which is not the case as proposed. In summary, the DRC Members believed the additional height and proposed building materials were consistent with the existing bungalow architecture; and the proposed structure was compatible in scale with existing structures in the vicinity of the project site. The applicant, in response to questions, explained that the addition is being proposed above the existing structure to preserve the rear yard, the exterior doors to the den are French and wood construction, the rafters are intended to match the existing, the roof for the addition shall be hot mopped with shingles placed on top, and the new windows are proposed to match the existing in size, construction, and scale. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 15, 2005 Page 3 Committee Member Woollett made a motion to continue this project to allow time for the applicant to consider revisions to the proposal by creating a minimum 1' separation between ridgeline and shed dormer, consider revising the design to a simpler architecture for the rear elevations, and to review any code required changes to the existing chimney caused by the change in roof height, and size and type of window. SECOND:Craig Wheeler AYES:Jon Califf, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler and Joe Woollett NOES:None ABSENT:None ABSTAIN:None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 15, 2005 Page 4 2. DRC No. 3996-OS -THE IRVINE COMPANY (continued from May 18, 2005 meeting) Santiago Hills IVEast Orange Planned Communities Design Guidelines Review of Design Guidelines for the Santiago Hills II and East Orange residential developments Staff Contact: Edward Knight, Principal Planner DRC Action: Final review and recommendation of the proposed design guidelines to the Planning Commission Ed Knight advised the Design Review Committee that the Design Review Guidelines for Santiago Hills II and East Orange I Planned Community was a continued item from the May 18, 2005 meeting. He stated the objective would be a final set of draft Design Review Guidelines that would be carried forward to the Planning Commission and that Staff's intent which was discussed with the Irvine Company, is that the Design Guidelines would be presented to the Planning Commission with the amendments that are being shown by the Design Review Committee. They would like to show the Planning Commission what the DRC put into this to get a good idea of the changes that were being proposed by the group. John Sherwood, The Irvine Company, Project Manager, introduced himself and other members of the Irvine Company along with an architectural consultant working with them on the design and authentic home types. He advised they took all the comments received at the last meeting and incorporated them into the new books provided (in a redline strikeout format, so the Committee Members could quickly see what they'd changed). He then thanked the Committee for putting them through the paces to get to the place where they are today and highlighted a couple of things: 1) The ideas of a range of square footage or a FAR. They had no recollection of this from the last meeting; however, they addressed that by going back to the products that were prototyped in other communities they built. He noted the home type section of Santiago Hills II as the prototype on Page 52, starting with some footnotes that were added in response to the DRC comments provided. Each of the single family detached programs have an expected range of square footage. This is based on what is known about the market and what is typically being built on a particular type of lot size. This provides some flexibility but they also wanted to give the Committee a sense of feedback they anticipated coming back from the builders. There is a footnote to explain what is known today. Inasmuch as things could change over time they wanted to give themselves some flexibility. That is what they attempted to do with that footnote. 2) They added to each of these sections, a response to the comment made about varying the front yard setback. The DRC comment was they didn't want a straight line of setbacks down a street. They gave that some thought and came up with the idea that 30% of the homes would be setback an additional 2 feet. The idea is there will be some variation. You may group the setbacks of those 2 feet, 2 or 3 homes in a row, or it may be alternating 1, 2, or 3 in a row. Ultimately, there would be some variation. They felt that was a livable solution for them and also for the builders down the road, to vary the street scene. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 15, 2005 Page 5 3) The other big ticket item was the idea of the Craftsman. Even after they published the book brought to this meeting they continued to look at some of the Craftsman ideas. (Replacement pages showing some new improved images of Craftsman were provided). 4) In Area I, they also caught a couple of mistakes on the expected range of square footage. Specifically, there is no difference between a 45x75 foot lot in Santiago Hills II or in Area I, but there was a difference in the expected range of square footage --- so those were made consistent on the insertion. Mr. Sherwood advised that everything else they covered was hopefully per DRC instructions. He stated they reorganized a bunch of the information into a really smart format that Committee Member Wheeler came up with in terms of organization matrices with information on all the product types and applicable standards or design styles for those. Further, he confirmed that the landscape section all matched up in terms of different characterizations and categories of plant types, with a legend on the exhibit. Committee Member Wheeler suggested that rather than go through everything that changed, they'd just hit any particular comments they had as individual members. Committee Member Joe Woollett started the discussion stating he had a couple of questions, simply because he didn't understand what was intended on Page 18 (Santiago Hills II). He questioned the top portion of the page which is X'd-out and has a red item in it that says outdoor space surrounded on three sides. What does that mean? John Sherwood responded "It is a little confusing but there is a grayed out area behind all the words there. That's what was there before. That was part of that table that we combined now. Really, all the words that you see are correct." He added that the old Page 18 was titled Housing Types and Architectural Styles, and it included that table. The new Page 18 is titled Spanish Colonial, and it includes history and character data. All of the bolder printing is what is the current recommendation; the light gray stuff is what used to be there. Committee Member Woollett then questioned what does "outdoor space surrounded on three sides" under massing mean? The response was that was a comment that came from last time; it refers to a courtyard that they try to surround. Committee Member Woollett then paraphrased it as a courtyard which is an outdoor space surrounded by three sides by building is what it means. The applicant stated "the last time we talked about one or two story wings forming a courtyard. I guess that wasn't clear, because we haven't made it any clearer". Committee Member Wheeler suggested that to avoid confusion in the future they insert the word courtyard. On Page 26: Under roofs, the third item down states flat or composition shingle roof. Committee Member Wheeler stated it was supposed to say "flat the". The applicant interjected flat the or composition shingle". Committee Member Wheeler then added a point for clarification: on the last item, "outlookers and braces typical at gable end of roof': in an Old Towne project we require that you not use the flat 2x4 outlookers on extended barges, as you City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 15, 2005 Page 6 would nowadays because it is not historic, they weren't done that way. The barge board was basically structural and the outlookers were structural holding up the barge board. On Page 27: Chair Califf commented there are a number of references to brick and asked the Committee whether their opinion was brick is appropriate for a Craftsman style in this community. He recalled that the last time they didn't think brick was appropriate. Committee Member Wheeler's response was that the Committee previously had been holding that brick was not appropriate in Old Towne because it wasn't used much in the district; however, it certainly had been used in other Craftsman areas. Committee Member Woollett commented that there are many things appropriate to Craftsman but not necessarily in this region. Committee Member Wheeler then expressed we are more likely to see a good application of brick than we would see of arroyo stone. He cited some lovely examples (in Pasadena) of the use of brick, clinker brick, with variegated colors. Not the kind of variegation we see for roofs nowadays, but the real stuff, that was over-toasted. Committee Member Woollett commented on the wording under accent wall materials stating where it references "Architectural trim applied to all is encouraged to be consistent with front elevation and the architectural style." should be changed to "must be consistent". On Page 61: Committee Member Wheeler referenced the comments made regarding offset windows for privacy, stating there are probably some situations where they ought to think about incorporating the same thing i.e. any time there are two buildings that are 10 feet apart or in the cases where they are 6 feet apart. His suggestion was to make the general comment that it applied everywhere where there is a tight side yard. The applicant responded they would find the appropriate place to put it, perhaps where they talk about architectural design, building articulation. On Page 66: Committee Member Wheeler commented that he noticed the applicant no longer did the expected range of living area and stated that he would like to see the building height diagram. Committee Member Wheeler then offered some tips for submittal to Design Review: 1) Reduced size sheets. 2) On multifamily projects, try to minimize roof clutter -- show us how you are going to reduce the amount of roof penetrations by grouping vents like plumbing vents, even mechanical vents, if possible, in the attic rather than have a whole bunch of penetrations. 3) Provide a little more information on how the trash is going to be handled: where it is going to be put out for pickup and so forth. The applicant responded saying he wasn't exactly sure where it maybe placed, perhaps in the PC text, however they were putting together an exhibit of submittal requirements for DRC review. Staff also provided commentary about the conditions contained in the tentative tract map regarding the need to coordinate with sanitary services for placement of trash enclosures. The final comments related to the landscaping plans and the use and placement of trees. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 15, 2005 Page 7 Committee Member Wheeler asked that they include Sycamores in the mix. Howard Morris reiterated comments made at the last meeting cautioning use of Eucalyptus trees and encouraging use of the Plantanus Mexicana, the Mexican Sycamore. The applicant noted the Irvine Company submitted a fairly extensive tree preservation plan and commented that in the areas which are known as the inversion marsh areas, they use a combination of Black Willows and Sycamores. Chair Califf stated he was very impressed with the dispatch and the method used to put it together. Committee Member Woollett moved that DRC No. 3996-OS be recommended for approval to the Planning Commission in accordance with the agreements made in the meeting. SECOND:Craig Wheeler AYES:Jon Califf, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler and Joe Woollett NOES:None ABSENT:None ABSTAIN:None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 15, 2005 Page 8 A motion to continue review of the minutes from the April 6, 2005 and Apri120, 2005 meetings was made by Committee Member Woollett. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Jon Califf, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES:None ABSENT:None ABSTAIN:None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 15, 2005 Page 9 A motion to adjourn until the next scheduled session was made by Chair Califf. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Jon Califf, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES:None ABSENT:None ABSTAIN:None MOTION CARRIED.