Loading...
06-21-2006 DRC MinutesCITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES -FINAL June 21, 2006 Committee Members Present: Jon Califf Donnie DeWees Craig Wheeler Joe Woollett Committee Members Absent: Bill Cathcart Staff in Attendance: Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager Christopher Carnes, Senior Planner Anne Fox, Contract Staff Planner Christine Kelly, Contract Principal Planner Sonal Thakur, Assistant Planner Howard Morris, Senior Landscape Coordinator Mari Burke, Recording Secretary Administrative Session - 5:00 P.M. The Committee met for an administrative session beginning at 5:00 p.m. The meeting adjourned at approximately 8:35 p.m. Regular Session - 5:30 P.M. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 21, 2006 Page 2 1. DRC No. 4063-06 -GARDEN GROVE RETAIL CENTER (QWIK KORNER) Proposed demolition and construction of new Liquor Store and Retail space. 4045 Garden Grove Boulevard Staff Contact: Sonal Thakur, 714-744-7239, sthakur(a~cityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination The Design Review Committee reviewed this project on June 7, 2006 and presented several questions to be answered by the Project Architect, Susan Secoy. Ms. Secoy had left that meeting early due to a schedule conflict. At this meeting Ms. Secoy responded as follows to the issues listed in the Staff Report: 1) Discuss the parapet coping (plaster and block). The drawings were used to illustrate where there is stucco; the parapet paint matches the stucco. Ms. Secoy pointed out this is a similar condition to what exists at the Best Buy Center by the I-5 and it uses a split base block with stucco elements. She has proposed to paint the coping at the top to match the stucco and where there is split base block she will use copper. 2) Discuss the intended design of the block walls above the market area. Also, remove the abrupt/odd transition in building materials (stucco vs. CMU block) around the building corners. Ms. Secoy stated she was not sure what was meant about the intended design of the block walls above the market area. Committee Member Wheeler stated they were concerned about the weight and the fact that it would need to be steel supported as it returned. Ms. Secoy indicated on the drawings where the steel supports would be located and where the stucco parapet was positioned to screen the mechanical units. Ms. Secoy pointed out that the stucco vs. CMU block required clarification on the plans. It was meant to be stucco all the way around the building. 3) Detail the block/stucco detail at the corner. As was clarified earlier, this condition doesn't exist. 4) Indicate the direction of the roof slope so as to ensure that the mechanical equipment is screened. Ms. Secoy pointed out on the drawings where the mechanical units would be located and indicated there would be a 3-1/2 foot parapet with the roof slope being % inch per foot. Chair Califf questioned whether they would run out of clearance with the use of the proposed parapet. Ms. Secoy stated they were not height restricted and could adjust as necessary. The discussion ensued as to viable options and concluded with Ms. Secoy stating that the DRC could put a condition that the mechanical equipment must be screened as she fully intend to comply. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 21, 2006 Page 3 Committee Member Wheeler questioned the drainage options. A number of options were proposed with Ms. Secoy ultimately stating she would work with a Civil Engineer on the drainage. 5) Eliminate the 1' separation between the parking lot wall and the building wall. Ms. Secoy illustrated the current condition and stated the reason they pulled it back was to simplify the drainage. The owner concurred with the finding of the DRC at the previous meeting stating that the 1' space could attract graffiti or crime occurring in that space. Committee Member Wheeler indicated another way to solve it would be to give the 1' to the adjoining property owner and let the building wall serve as the fence. Ms. Secoy stated they are working with the other property owner and will continue with those discussions. 6) Indicate where the transformer is located. Ms. Secoy indicated on the drawings where the transformer exists today and also where they are proposing to relocate it to, upon approval by Southern California Edison. 7) Provide more information on the metal canopy. Indicate whether it is closed, open, a solid box, etc. Ms. Secoy indicated it is a closed canopy. It will have a roof on top with stucco to match the building on the bottom. Committee Member Wheeler asked if they had considered using a metal soffit instead of stucco. Ms. Secoy responded she has picked up some literature on it and agreed with the Committee Members that it is cleaner and more aesthetically pleasing. Committee Member Woollett complimented Ms. Secoy on the project. No public comment was provided on this item. Committee Member Woollett made a motion to approve DRC No. 4063-06 subject to Staff's standard recommendations and conditions of approval including the landscaping and irrigation recommendations. SECOND: Donnie DeWees 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 June 21, 2006 Page 4 2. DRC No. 3786-02 - ARCHSTONE GATEWAY APARTMENTS Final landscape and fencing plans, parking structure corridor design, design elements to distinguish the boundaries between the City of Orange and the City of Anaheim, roof plans which demonstrate that the number of roof protrusions have been minimized, and building elevations to determine that the ledger stone has been appropriately incorporated. 291 State College Blvd. Staff Contact: Christine Kelly, (714) 744-7223, ckelly@cityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination A project overview was provided by Planner Christine Kelly during which she advised this project had previously been before the Design Review Committee two other times; it has been before the Planning Commission and the City Council. The applicant is moving towards building permits; however, there are some final design issues to be reviewed. Specifically those include the landscaping plan, the fencing plan, the roofing plan (in particular, the number of roof protrusions had to be minimized to the extent possible), a requirement to incorporate Ledger Stone into the building elevations and landscape areas, address the courtyard view from the garage. With input provided by the applicant's representatives, Ms. Kelly reviewed the proposed changes as follows: Landscaping Plan: Ms. Kelly indicated there are some issues related to water line easements which have resulted in changes required to the southeast side (not adjacent to the mobile home park but rather beyond it). Due to spacing, the Podocarpus trees need to be removed. They will be replaced with Podocarpus Maki trees and for every tree they remove they will upsize (in the Dry Creek Court) one of the Podocarpus trees to a 24" box. Fencing Plan: Ms. Kelly indicated that an 8' masonry wall was required on behalf of the mobile home park along the east boundary. This wall is now included on the plans and was pointed out on the drawings by Ms. Kelly. Roof Plan: Ms. Kelly indicated that a recommendation was made to group the additional roof vents (aside from the O'Hagin roof vents) and have a single pipe come out through the roof. Parking structure and corridor area: Ms. Kelly indicated Staff felt it now reflected the recommendations of the DRC but they wanted assurances so it was to be presented. Project applicants were introduced by Ms. Kelly. The project architect, Robert Clignett discussed the roof plan further indicating they would be painting the vents to match the adjacent roof tiles which are a palette of colors as opposed to a single color. Committee Member Woollett asked "What is the shape of the the?" The applicant responded "it is S-shaped." Chair Califf asked if they would use the same shape O'Hagin's. The applicant responded affirmatively. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 21, 2006 Page 5 Ms. Kelly interjected that as a result of the sound transmission studies, the balconies along the frontage would include glass as a barrier. Mr. Clignett pointed out on the drawings where the sound barrier requirements existed and stated there are fifteen (15) units where the barrier completely encloses the balcony. The locations of these units were pointed out. Ventilation will be addressed with the use of opening windows. No public comment was provided on this item. Chair Califf asked for clarification on the incorporation of Ledger Stone as the Design Review Committee had previously requested. Mr. Clignett indicated they would be covering approximately 60% of the frontage with the stone (a sample of the stone was provided). Committee Member Woollett indicated the concern was that it would be concentrated on one building. Mr. Clignett responded it is now planned to be spread across all three buildings (A, B and C) facing State College Boulevard. Committee Member DeWees stated that it previously appeared only on the Rec Building and asked if they still proposed to include it on the Rec Building. Mr. Clignett responded affirmatively, in fact, it will now have 75%-80% stone. Committee Member Wheeler suggested they now incorporate it in some of the landscape features. The applicant responded they have already done this. Chair Califf asked if there were any issues related to splitting the project between two cities Anaheim and Orange). The applicant responded they had been meeting with both cities and they believe both Police Departments are now comfortable with the boundary line solutions. Ms. Kelly interjected they are delineating the boundaries in the entry by designing a line into the pavers. Ms. Kelly asked if the DRC wanted to require the applicant to increase the roof area where O'Hagin vents are provided. Committee Member Woollett responded that the Committee concern was visibility within the development. Chair Califf interjected that the proposed change was adequate. Committee Member Wheeler stated he would like Recommendation #3 in the Staff Report modified to read: Any remaining vents, including plumbing and mechanical, which are not O'Hagin vents, shall be grouped and painted to match the adjacent roof tile. The applicant asked if it would be sufficient to make it as a note on the plans. The Committee responded that would be preferable. Chair Califf made a motion to recommend approval of DRC No. 3786-02 with the recommendations included in the Staff Report modified as it pertains to the roof and plumbing vents. 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 June 21, 2006 Page 6 3. DRC No. 4090-06 -TGI-FRIDAY'S REMODEL Proposal to enclose 166 square feet of recessed area at the entrance of an existing restaurant and remodel the restaurant exterior including signage. 3339 Entertainment Avenue Staff Contact: Anne Fox, (714) 744-7229, afox(a,cit oforan e.or DRC Action: Final Determination Planning Manager Leslie Aranda Roseberry provided a brief project overview during which she advised TGI-Fridays is doing a rehab of the existing exterior to create the new corporate look and expand a portion of the front entryway. Color elevations and color boards were provided. Ms. Roseberry advised the proposed signage is within the parameters and is being presented for Design Review Committee approval. Committee Member Woollett indicated on the east elevation (which is very prominent on State College) the canopies were removed on the south end and he asked if the new look was intentional inasmuch as this is a gateway to the center and it will basically appear as an industrial building with a sign on it. The use of landscaping was discussed and Committee Member DeWees stated he had the same concern in another area of the building. Committee Member DeWees asked if it was intentional to have the new sign on one corner and the old sign meeting it on the other corner. The applicant responded affirmatively. Committee Member DeWees asked if the neon was staying on the cornice. The applicant responded it would be removed. Committee Member Wheeler indicated on the south elevation there is some sort of material behind the traditional Friday's design and asked what it is. The applicant responded it was not called out. Committee Member Wheeler commented it may be odd to add another material and asked if they could use the same brick as the backing for this area to connect the new to the existing rather than adding a new element. The applicant stated he didn't know if the brick could be done but they could match the color. Chair Califf interjected that if TGI-Friday's corporate felt strongly about the material specified then they should provide Staff a photograph showing what it looks like installed. Committee Member Wheeler stated the landscaping plan indicates no trees would be added or removed; however, he questioned, won't there be temptation to remove the three (3) palm trees at the front of the entrance on the west side as these will be very close to the new canopy? The applicant responded the worst they would do is move them; they would not remove them. No public comment was provided on this item. Chair Califf made a motion to approve DRC No. 4090-06 as submitted with additional comments: 1) That the applicant add two canopies in the style of the new ones---one in each of the two bays (this relates to the canopies on the east elevation, south side). City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 21, 2006 Page 7 2) The material behind the old TGI-Friday's sign on the south elevation be submitted to Staff for final 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 June 21, 2006 Page 8 Prior to hearing Item #4, Chair Califf announced that the general procedures appear on the topportionoftheagendaandhighlightedthatthepurviewoftheDesignReviewCommitteegenerallyspeakingisdesign. Chair commented further that issues of land use, zoning, trafficandsoundaregenerallyoutsidethepurviewofthisCommitteeandalthoughthatdown 't meantheydon't want to hear them, he wanted it understood that those issues are not decided by thisbody. 4. DRC No. 4109-OS -PACIFIC GROVE Proposed development of former railroad right-of--way with 6 dwelling units and a recreational trail. Approximately 3.9 acres located west of Esplanade Street between La Veta Avenue andFairhavenAvenue Staff Contact: Christopher Carnes, (714) 744-7225, ccarnes cr,cityoforan e orgDRCAction: Recommendation to the Planning Commission A project overview consistent with the information contained in the Staff Report was providedbySeniorPlannerChristopherCarnes. During the overview Mr. Carnes advised: the City wouldtakeovertheportionoftherecreationaltrail (generally south of where the homes are located)that doesn't involve anything to do with the maintenance (on-site filtration, drainage systemsetc.) or the Homeowners Association; the City's portion will include minimum improvements;City Staff will review the existing landscaping to determine what could be retained; the trail willbe10' wide, decomposed granite with concrete curbing on either side; access to the trail will be restricted to police and maintenance vehicles; the landscaping plan generally consists of droughttolerantplantmaterialsbetweenLaVetaandthesouthernhome. Mr. Carnes announced that one of the goals of the Design Review Committee is to comment onthecompatibilityoftheproposedhomeswiththeexistingtractstotheeastandwest. The applicant is requesting R-1-7 zoning which allows a maximum height of 32'; 21' at the highestridgeisbeingproposed. The project design has not quite finalized the elevations of the pads yetasthegradingplanhasnotbeenapproved. Mr. Carnes stated that the majority of trees on site are being removed. This has been been reviewed by City Staff and a botanist. These trees have been found to mostly be unhealthy.Also, none of the large trees on-site were found to be a native species. Using storyboards the applicant's Architect Reza Hadaegh made a brief presentation duringwhichhestatedtheentiretyofthesiteis4acresandisdividedintothreesegments. The front segment (referred to as Parcel A) is going to have a private drive with a stop sign. There will be a dead end with a modified hammerhead at the end for utility vehicles and fire trucks. Parcels 1 6 (where the individual proposed homes are located) was highlighted on the storyboard. A cross section (at the midpoint of the homes) was provided. Mr. Hadaegh indicated the proposedhomeswouldmoreorlessbeatthesameelevationastheEichlerhomestothewest. The site from north to south slopes down. The plan is to establish pads at 1' intervals vertically. This would take advantage of the existing contour of the site, stepping down with it which would eliminate any soil import or export. To the east of the project, the houses that face Chipwood are City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 21, 2006 Page 9 at a higher elevation. They have deliberately oriented the higher parts of the homes towards that area versus having them look over towards the Eichler homes. The bedrooms and private zonesoftheproposedhomesaresituatedinthebackofthehomesandare10' high. Although they are permitted to put in 2-story structures, the developer has decided to forego a second story andinsteadputinamezzaninewhichactsasamulti-purpose room. The mezzanine would be completely screened from the west so that even from the east-facing decks one could not lookbackatthehousesonthewestside. Mr. Hadaegh stated that for a number of reasons they have deliberately tried to not emulate theEichlerhomes. Mr. Hadaegh stated there are three (3) exterior prototypes but all six (6) proposed homes havedifferentcolorization. Starting with each prototype he pointed out that if house 1 and 4 are the same type with the same massing they have ensured one takes stucco and the other takes stained wood. This is designed so the street and side views each present a different story. Mr. Hadaegh stated Parcel B is what is being dedicated to the City (the details of the dedication are still being worked out). Mr. Hadaegh indicated ideally they would keep the multi-purposewalkthatisdesignedcurrentlytoconnectwiththecountymulti-purpose walk that connects to retail outlets on the north. Public input was provided as follows: John Hamilton, address on file stated his residence abuts house #6 and has approximately 200' of fence line on two different sides adjacent to the project. As the rear of his house has about 10' of glass he is concerned about privacy and the view lines. He stated that the grade has crept up every year along the fence line and his home steps down another 18"-20" within their property.This would give a great view right down into his dining room, bedroom and living room. He has complained to the City for some time about the grading which has been a problem that has grown steadily over the years. His recommendation would be to reduce the number of houses to five (5) and make them single story. Don Pierce, address on file stated he is not directly affected by the proposed project as it does not impede his view but they have applied for historic designation for the neighborhood and they are in the process of fulfilling that designation. Working with the Marine Historic Association, one of the main issues is to keep the integrity of the houses the way they were intended. All of the houses have one window on the street with a rear of entire glass. Mr. Pierce stated his house was designed so that from the family room he could see the Hills of Orange. When he met with the original architect that worked with Mr. Eichler he was told they were placed on each lot for privacy and view thus anything built behind them would basically impede the view and consequently change the neighborhood. Dottie Ronan, address on file stated that approximately nine days after this project was posted on the City's website, more than 120 residents signed a petition expressing concern about the development. (A copy was provided to each DRC Committee Member). Questions and issues cited by Ms. Ronan were: City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 21, 2006 Page 10 1) The proposed development will negatively impact the Eichler homes as a result primarily of the 2°d level mezzanine component. The perception is these are 2-storyhomesregardlessofthesizeofthemezzaninestructure. These are tall structures and several Eichler residents have property that sits significantly lower than the rear of their property lines. 2) The proposed homes do not appear to be compatible with the City's Infill Residential Guidelines. 3) The trail being gifted to the City but having emergency vehicle access being a condition does not seem appropriate. 4) A 3,000 sq. ft. home being placed on a 7,000 sq. ft. lot will really press the limits of the lots. By comparison, the Eichler homes are 2,200-2,300 sq. ft. on at least a 7,500 sq. ft. lot. 5) The proposed setback for the rear fences: Is it going outside of the City standard? If so,will they be requesting a waiver of the standard? 6) The proposed street and sidewalk widths: Will there be curb parking? Will another waiver of City standards be requested? 7) What is the total length of the dead end street? Will another waiver be requested? 8) Will the utilities be underground? If not, why not? Will another waiver be requested?9) There is an underground Kinder Morgan high pressure fuel line that runs on the length of the property. Ms. Ronan expressed concerns regarding the depth of it, soil compaction for a proposedroadwayandtheaffectonthefuellineoftheprojectactivity. Ms. Ronan stated research into Kinder Morgan shows the property has a poor history of charting and maintainingthefuellines. OSHA violations found on the Internet were quoted. 10)Grading plans: importing and exporting soil will have an impact on the fuel line. Ms. Ronan concluded by stating the Eichler homes will be severely impacted by this development. Mr. Carnes was asked to answer questions raised by Ms. Ronan and what variances, if any, the project would require. Mr. Carnes responded that as designed, the only exception to the Code being requested is for an Administrative Adjustment that relates to the lot width when measured at the front setback. The Code requires a minimum of 60'; they are averaging 57' which means the lot is narrower at the front (it is wider at the back). Mr. Carnes stated they are not asking for any exceptions to setbacks; the side yard setback to the home referenced by Mr. Hamilton is a minimum of 5' from the side yard property line; and there is a roof overhang which is to Code. Regarding the rear fencing: Mr. Carnes stated if the property is built at the same grade, the assumption is there would be 6' fences around the back yards. If there is a grade separation the maximum 6' height is measured from the high side. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 21, 2006 Page 11 The Police and Fire Departments have approved the proposed designs. The fire vehicle turnaround area was highlighted. The emergency vehicle access on the trail is to allow Police access which maybe required for any reason. It is also designed for maintenance vehicle access so the City can work on landscaping and keeping the area clean. The lot sizes are the minimum required by Code (7000 sq. ft). The footprints of the homes are approximately 2900 sq. ft. The City Staff Review Committee has reviewed the street width and the recreational trail on several occasions and recommended approval to the Planning Commission. The Developer has sent plans to Kinder Morgan about the project and received generic standards for developing around the pipeline. The Developer has now submitted specific plans about where they propose to locate the utilities for this project so Kinder Morgan can review them in relationship to the placement of the pipes. The pipes generally run down the middle of the property. Chair asked if there was any City agency that has oversight of this? Mr. Carnes stated when the City reviews the installation of the utilities. The applicant interjected that at the Developers expense (with a Kinder Morgan representativeandtheirownsurveyorpresent) they have taken precautions to ensure they do not come remotelyclosetothepipelines. Mr. Carnes stated that even though the surrounding area is predominantly developed single story,the Infill Ordinance of the Guidelines do allow building of two-story structures. They have to be built sympathetic to the surrounding development. Planning Manager Leslie Aranda Roseberry interjected that a lot of the issues being raised by the public will be addressed in the environmental disclosure document that the City is preparing.The document will be prepared at least twenty (20) days prior to the Planning Commission meeting and will be available for public review and comment. Ms. Roseberry invited participants to give their names and addresses to Mr. Carnes to ensure they receive the notification of the meeting and the document. John Butler, address on file stated proposed House #1 will look into his whole back yard. He would like to have a solid wall on the proposed houses facing his home. He would also like to know what would preclude a new homeowner from putting a window in the solid wall area? Mr. Butler also expressed concern about the width of the road; specifically, how do they gain access from their back yards as they have today. Steve Flanagan address on file stated he lives closer to the #1 house than Mr. Butler and he shares all the same concerns expressed by other residents. He would like to have the proposed 1 model flipped over so the deck faces south; to maintain the rural aesthetics he would ask that the rear easement/setback to the houses be increased from 10' to some greater number; that the City not grant any variance on street frontage widths; and his opinion is that 5 houses versus 6 houses would be much more appropriate on the property. Mr. Flanagan acknowledged that House #6 is flipped over so the balcony portion faces north away from the Eichler homeowners; City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 21, 2006 Page 12 however, windows could be installed that would look straight into the Eichler properties. Brian Jacobs, address on file stated he had a concern that the Committee follow their agenda and receive the public input fairly which is to say it would be unimpeded. Chair Califf asked what the impediment was Mr. Jacob was objecting to. Mr. Jacob responded he thought the applicant was given the opportunity to have a rebuttal and the public was not given the same opportunity so that was unfair. He added his belief was the meeting was not being conducted exactly as it was stated on the agenda. Chair Califf interjected they were just trying to answer the questions raised by other representatives. Mr. Jacobs stated the City has identified the Eichler tract as a significant historical architecture in terms of aesthetics and design. Mr. Jacobs stated they have serious problems with the proposed development and that he wasn't sure any of the Committee Members have been in an Eichler home. He cited features of the Eichler homes and expressed extreme concerns over privacy retention, massing of the proposed housing, quality issues with the proposed housing, and no continuity with the prevailing Eichler tract. In conclusion Mr. Jacob stated he was extremely disappointed they never received a response to a letter sent to the City (Copies were provided to Staff and the Committee). Rose Homme, address on file stated she wanted to address the elevations of the proposed homes. Ms. Homme lives adjacent to House #3 and the grade from where her house sits in relation to where the fence is located is at least a 4' difference-not to mention another 2' on the other side of the fence. Ms. Homme stated a 6' fence would not do anything for her. She stated there is a lot of publicity around the Eichler homes and she believes proceeding with the development will reflect negatively on the City for not preserving the integrity of the neighborhood. Ms. Homme reiterated concerns about privacy retention and the impacts of the proposed houses on the view from her home. She stated she believes the rooflines and colors need to be addressed and the mezzanines should be completely out of the question. Joe Chrastla, address on file lives adjacent to House #5 and stated his house is the only 6- bedroom Eichler; consequently he extends further back on the lot. Mr. Chrastla stated even though there is presently a 6 ft. rear fence he can still see pedestrian and bicycle traffic on the path. The problem would be intensified if the elevation was raised. He stated that some time ago he looked at buying the parcel for himself and when he talked with the City there was discussion as to whether they would be 7,000 or 8,000 square foot lots. At best that would mean he could only put five (5) houses there. Mr. Chrastla expressed concern about privacy and the potential for new homeowners adding a second story. He asked if there was a way to impose a restriction on new homeowners which would preclude them from adding a second story at a future date. Mr. Chrastla stated he was also concerned about drainage in the future and that a shared cost proposal on the rear fence was not an option. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 21, 2006 Page 13 John Welty, address on file stated he lives on the Chipwood side and the proposed homes will not hurt him. He would like to have the roof lines not go higher than 21'. He stated the property to be developed has been a trash dump site for a number of years and he will consequently be happy to see it cleaned up with nice new homes. Committee Member Wheeler asked Mr. Welty if he could currently see into the Eichler homes. Mr. Welty responded he probably could if he stood on a little box at the back fence. Chris Merritt, address on file stated he has a concern with the density factor. In his opinion they are plunking down six (6) homes in the middle of a completely conforming area in a non- conforming way which will never measurably appreciate the value of the surrounding homes. This concluded the public input. Mr. Hadaegh provided a materials board and responded to a few of the design issues raised: 1) Relative to the houses creating one mass of a building he showed an aerial view of the existing Eichler homes and stated the proposed development will resemble what was done with them. He also stated there are a number of other Eichler homes that are not on 7,000 square foot lots. 2) The mezzanine satisfies a number of criteria: it is cost effective to the Developer, it adds 300 square feet to the home, it took into consideration the visual access concerns of the neighborhood and meets the development standards. 3) The difference between five homes and six homes is the difference between this being a viable prof ect or not. 4) The houses will be stepped down to work with the slope. 5) The fact that the houses don't look like Eichler homes is intentional. If the proposed houses mimicked Eichler homes it would reduce the value of the existing Eichler homes. Committee Member Woollett addressed the audience stating he was very familiar with Eichler homes---he has lived in an Eichler home since 1962, he studied Eichler's in the San Francisco/Bay Area, his brother has owned a couple of Eichler homes, he has done work on his brother's homes and he met Mr. Eichler when he was in school. Committee Member Woollett pointed out that all Committee Members are Architects, all are familiar with Eichler homes and some have been in his home. Committee Member Woollett cited some issues he's confronted over the years with his Eichler home, many which echoed the concerns expressed by members of the public. Committee Member Woollett stated he greatly values Eichler homes but he is sensitive to the rights of owners of private property to develop their property. He added that he thought the Architect was very, very sensitive in his design; he saw his role on the Committee to enforce the Community Infill Design Guidelines; if the proposed houses were on the same streets as those of the public attendees he would be much more concerned with compatibility; he is very concerned, as always, with privacy when new buildings are built or renovations are done; a 6 ft. fence would be within 8" of the top of the window because all of the windows are 6'8" high. As most people are not 6', this would eliminate seeing over the fence from inside of the house. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 21, 2006 Page 14 Committee Member Woollett asked to see the model so he could see where the deck is situated. He pointed out the edge of the building would be visible and the roof slope is also in the line of sight. He expressed concerns with: 1) what the total fence height might be 2) house #1 on the far north side may have a potential conflict with the deck placement 3) the ability of the building to maintain it's appearance over a long term Committee Member DeWees concurred with the Architect's comment about not mimicking the design of the Eichler homes as it would be disrespectful and added that the idea of making reference to the internal courtyard by having a spine is absolutely right. Committee Member DeWees stated he too studied Eichler's in school; he agreed with all of Committee Member Woollett's comments and concerns; he stressed to the Architect and Developer to do everything possible to push the finish grade down and reiterated the need to address the privacy issue created by House #1 on the north side. Two opportunities that are possibly being missed as cited by Committee Member DeWees were: 1) some sort of reference to the railroad - it represents Gideon's Space, Time, and Architecture 2) some more gesture should be given to looking at some of the north glass (with the exception of house #1 that has a privacy issue) In conclusion Committee Member DeWees stated he knew a great deal of study had been done and he thought the design was very well done but he sees materials and colors fighting each other. Chair Califf asked Mr. Carnes if the recreational open space was adequate. Mr. Carnes responded affirmatively. Committee Member Wheeler asked the Architect if he had built any houses similar to these anywhere else. The response was yes. Concerns expressed by Committee Member Wheeler were: 1) Costs: there were a number of inconsistencies and errors in the original drawings and although those issues have now been corrected, potential modifications necessitated as the project progresses may result in increased costs. Committee Member Wheeler therefore wanted to establish some firm controls to ensure when the project comes in for Building Dept. review that it has not changed drastically from what the DRC reviewed. 2) Privacy: It would be good to take another look at what more could be done to help increase the privacy of the Eichler homes. A few of the plans appear to have quite a bit of glass on the west elevations and perhaps much of it could be moved around to the courtyard sides. Use of high glass was suggested on the areas where privacy is a concern. 3) Fencing: the final height and design of the fence -suggestions were provided such as a perforated design which would block the view but not be quite as dense. 4) Accurate floorplans: the Committee hasn't seen accurate floor plans where any change City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 21, 2006 Page 15 of plane is reflected (as shown on the model). The fireplaces aren't shown. 5) Line of Sight: Show what the true line of sight is into the Eichler houses. Chair Califf asked that they choose a location and get more information off an aerial so they could be more specific about the level and how it does slope back. He wanted them to show what they anticipate at the fence line with the current grading and how much the home behind is stepped down. Committee Member Wheeler stated he thought they did a very good job of trying to honor the Eichler's without trying to copy them. Chair Califf reiterated to the public attendees that this project will proceed to the Planning Commission and the City Council. Both of those bodies have expanded purview over many of issues and concerns expressed by them at this meeting that the DRC doesn't have the authority to act upon. Mr. Carnes asked if the DRC wanted to review the plans again prior to the issuance of building permits. Committee Member Woollett asked the Architect when the grading plan would be available. Mr. Hadaegh responded the Water Quality Management Plan is ready and can be sent via messenger to the City on Thursday, June 22nd. Further he advised that a conceptual grading plan has been submitted; however, the final should be completed within a week. Committee Member Woollett asked Mr. Carnes when this project could go to the Planning Commission. Mr. Carnes responded it is contingent on final resolution of the grading plan, some questions on utilities and the Water Quality Management Plan. Committee Member Woollett stated he would like to see the grading plan before the project goes before the Planning Commission. Committee Member Woollett made a motion to continue the project specifically to review: 1) modifications to Model #1 2) comparative heights of the lots with the properties to the West 3) the fence design around the perimeter of the development 4) greater conformance between the plans and elevations 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 June 21, 2006 Page 16 Committee Member Woollett made a motion to approve the minutes of the May 18, 2005, May 17, 2006, and June 7, 2006 meetings with revisions as noted. SECOND: Jon Califf AYES: Jon Califf, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Bill Cathcart MOTION CARRIED. A motion was made by Chair Califf to adjourn until the next scheduled session. SECOND: Donnie DeWees AYES: Jon Califf, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Bill Cathcart MOTION CARRIED.