Loading...
07-06-2005 DRC MinutesCITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES -FINAL July 6, 2005 Committee Members Present: Jon Califf Craig Wheeler Joe Woollett Staff in Attendance: Rick Otto, Acting Planning Manager Christopher Carnes, Senior Planner Christine Kelly, Contract Project Manager Daniel Ryan, Senior Planner Historic Preservation Committee Member Absent: Donnie DeWees Administrative Session - 5:00 P.M. The Committee met for an administrative session beginning at 5:00 p.m. The meeting adjourned at approximately 7:10 p.m. Regular Session - 5:30 P.M. Chair Califf announced that the following two Agenda Items were withdrawn from the Agenda: 5. DRC No. 4007-OS -COSTA AZUL - (SHARON GALVAN) 6. DRC No. 4012-OS -THE DISTRICT LOUNGE (MARIO MARVIC) City ofOrange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 6, 2005 Page 2 1. DRC No. 4000-OS - ELSA MANCHESTER Proposed accessory dwelling unit 2645 E. Walnut Avenue Contact: Christopher Carnes, Senior Planner DRC Action: Final Determination A project overview was done by Christopher Carnes during which he advised this item is an accessory second unit, approximately 640 square feet, behind an existing residence on East Walnut. It includes an extra garage space on the side of the existing garage with code required onsite parking. The proposed structure is similar in materials and roof construction as the existing residence and Staff has recommended approval for that reason. The applicant added they are going to go with basic stucco on the walls, the three dimensional roof will match the existing on the primary structure and be the same colors, Class A. No public comment was provided. Chair Califf questioned the parking location being close to the entry and added he wasn't sure if there was anything that could be done about it. The applicant responded they don't expect to use this space, it is there just to meet the requirement. Chair Califf noted there is a full width driveway where they could park. Committee Member Wheeler suggested the use of pavers that meet the load bearing specifications. Chair Califf added that Oracle Block makes a good paver. Committee Member Woollett asked about access to the back and the response was that there will be a lighted landscaped route to the back. Committee Member Wheeler suggested the applicant reverse the roof pitch so the gable end faces the house. His reasoning was threefold: 1) It might look more attractive from the house. 2) They could incorporate the entry as a secondary gable so it wouldn't act so much as a bump on the side of the house. 3) They would be spanning just a little bit less distance, which would make it easier. He pointed out that it does have a disadvantage, if whoever is doing the structure wanted to use king posts to support the ridge board. The way it is currently, there is a partition that would hold king posts easily. The proposed way wouldn't provide as many opportunities for king posts; however, there are other ways to do it with the conventional construction methods in the code. Chair Califf added that he liked the braces this way and the short gable over the top of the entryway. Committee Member Wheeler showed two different versions because there seemed to be a different entry door on the floor plan than on the elevation and his opinion is a gable is aesthetically more pleasing than a shed roof. The applicant responded that he didn't know how it got turned around in this particular portrayal and pointed out how they were going to build it. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 6, 2005 Page 3 Committee Member Wheeler also commented that it needed to be specified on the plans that the roof pitch is 4 and 12. Committee Member Wheeler asked the applicant to comment about the window trim. The applicant advised the windows they will use have a border trim, substantially white and if they use vinyl, they're usually 2-3 inches wide and won't be cased. Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve DRC No. 4000-OS as shown with two conditions: 1) That the roof pitch be indicated as being 4:12. 2) That any new irrigation system should be automatic. SECOND: Jon Califf AYES: Jon Califf, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSENT: Donnie DeWees ABSTAIN: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 6, 2005 Page 4 2. DRC No. 3944-04 -MAPLE AND PIXLEY TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT A request for preliminary review of the architectural and landscape plans for athirty- two unit transit oriented development comprised of for-sale, residential loft units, three of which will be live/work units. At a subsequent meeting, the DRC will be asked to recommend to the Planning Commission (a) whether the project's architectural and landscape plans comply with the Santa Fe Depot Specific Plan and the Orange Municipal Code; and (b) on the replacement structure or use for the site, for the demolition of a noncontributing structure within the Old Towne District. 501 West Maple Avenue (Old Towne Historic District) Staff Contact: Christine Kelly, Contract Project Manager DRC Action: Review and provide comments Project Manager Christine Kelly provided vesting maps for clarification and conducted a project overview. She advised this item had previously been before the DRC as a forty-unit project. It was approved on a 3-1 vote and then went to the Planning Commission where it was approved on a 4-1 vote. Based on community input, the applicant revised the project. They are back for preliminary design review with some modifications to the project. On July 20th it will be brought back for a final review. The revised project now has 32 units. Depending on which code is used--the building code or the zoning code, they are two-story (by building code) with a mezzanine, or three story (by zoning code) because of the mezzanine. Maximum height is 32 feet. They have two and three bedroom units again. They have reduced the number of live/work units to three units which face Maple. Again, 15% of the units will be affordable for sale to moderate income families. They have increased the number of parking spaces--each unit now has atwo-car garage; they have 9 spaces for commercial (which meets the retail standard of 1 for 200) and they also have sufficient guest parking. The applicant is looking for some direction relative to materials, design, form, and compatibility. Ms. Kelly introduced John Reekstin, Senior Vice President of Community Development, for The Olson Company and he introduced his team. Chair Califf asked the applicant to give a little bit of background, to let the Committee know conceptually where they are headed and how they arrived there from the origina142 unit plan. Mr. Reekstin stated he thought the key issue in reaching out to the community was to address their concerns with: 1) Tandem parking. 2) A lack of guest parking onsite and a reliance on the Depot lot to cover some of the guest parking requirements. 3) The height of the structure. These are the elements that they redesigned around. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 6, 2005 Page 5 The Project Architect, Brad Mansfield, added that basically this is a whole new redesign. There are two brand new floor plans. They are based on the loft concept. They have high plates 10, 10, and 8 for the mezzanine portion. They are trying to tie in with the historic nature of the area, the industrial feel of it, the use of brick as well as the metal awnings and so forth. Also, they want to bring light into the center of each of the units, as well as into the mezzanine. Chair Califf asked for public input which was provided as follows: Janet Crenshaw, OTPA, commented that she read through the report which says it ties in because to the south there are multi-family units. She stated that was not true; there are single-family houses to the south of this area. Ms. Kelly interjected that the zoning is multi-family. Ms. Crenshaw replied "maybe so, most of Old Towne is zoned multi-family". Ms. Crenshaw then commented on the mezzanine stating that in her opinion it was not a mezzanine, instead it was more of a third floor terrace or something similar and calling it a mezzanine was a misnomer. She then stated that as she went through the report she kept looking for the regular apartments, the buildings, the living units and every one of them, no matter whether it was #1 or #2 had a live/work area. She wanted that explained as she thought that would only happen in the three commercial combination buildings. Ms. Kelly stated she had the same question on the mezzanine so she asked Brad Mansfield to give the official building definition. He replied there are only three live/work units for the entire site and he showed where they were depicted on the plans. The discussion ensued about the live/work area with Mr. Mansfield ultimately stating they might have been mislabeled as he referred all to the site plan where just three units were designated live/work. There were also some units that showed an optional bedroom in the area questioned by Ms. Crenshaw. Mr. Mansfield defined the mezzanine perimeters, as per code, stating it can only be one-third of the floor area above it; it has to be open to below. Per code, it is not a story. There is a definition of what a story is, as well as what a mezzanine is. There is a minimum ceiling height and a minimum dimension. There is a maximum area. Ms. Crenshaw then interpreted the drawing to be "two story high plus one story". Chair Califf clarified that the building code would define it as a two story plus a mezzanine. Mr. Mansfield added "the back elevations are setback with high windows for the mezzanine to allow light in. Clearly there is a two-story element at the very front, and then as you go around to the back (the alley pieces) we add additional windows. Those are setback so there is no site visibility or anything like that if one was to look out those windows". The parapet around the building is 28 foot to 29 foot. Ms. Crenshaw then asked for a definition of open space; specifically, did it include parking lots and sidewalks? Ms. Kelly responded that it did not include parking lots and sidewalks---open space is where there are plantings. She then demonstrated on the landscape plan where open space areas (that aren't dual use) are defined. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 6, 2005 Page 6 Jeff Frankel, OTPA, expressed his appreciation to the Olson Company for meeting with them and the community to try to mitigate all the issues; however, he thinks there are a number of issues with the design being presented. Specifically: 1) They wanted a little more brick on the exterior. He cited the Santa Fe Depot Specific plan, calls out for period materials, masonry, stone, or something of that nature--any other material should be avoided. He thought painted brick was really inappropriate. Red brick that has the same profile and dimension as the older style brick is what they would really prefer. 2) He thought the Santa Fe Depot Specific plan also stated that on street facing elevations the maximum was 25 feet including parapet, and then as you go back they allow a little taller structure. The proposal shows 29 feet and he wondered where that came from. 3) He questioned the setbacks from the street--are they 15 feet? Mr. Mansfield responded "the front one is 15 feet". 4) They would like to see the windows---they would rather see a building that reflects the design and materials of other buildings within the district with windows of the appropriate materials a sample was provided). He stated the earlier discussion was that they would possibly go with aluminum. Mr. Reekstin responded that aluminum is still a possibility. 5) He questioned the appropriateness of the billboard and stated he was not sure that it is really appropriate. In conclusion Mr. Frankel stated he recognized this was not the final design but reiterated he would like to see more authentic materials of the period and some of the design elements should incorporate more of a turn of the century industrial look. Chair Califf asked for further detail about the finish materials. He recalled previous discussions when they talked about the brick and how it returns to the windows and things to give it a dimension of a full-face brick. He asked if they were planning that through the elevation? Mr. Mansfield responded affirmatively, adding that due to the plate heights they would be using 2x6 studs which allows them the opportunity to go to a 2x4 at the windows, similar to the details presented earlier. Chair Califf asked if they would be using storefronts in the commercial units. Mr. Mansfield responded affirmatively then pinpointed the metal areas, where they would perhaps have awning pieces to get ventilation, a cupboard flush door with metal facing to give it an industrial feel and tie in with the window materials, including the awnings which will be metal as well. He added there is some opportunity to incorporate more brick if that was something they wanted to see. Committee Member Woollett commented that he thought this was a substantial improvement from the last proposal and that he liked it a lot. The questions he posed were: 1) The drawings seem to indicate that the brick is not painted, is it painted or not? Mr. Mansfield's response was that it had been revised to say half brick, just regular railroad brick. 2) Would the windows be a colored aluminum? City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 6, 2005 Page 7 Mr. Mansfield responded they haven't gotten there yet. There is going to be a color consultant on board. 3) Could the window frames be black? Mr. Mansfield responded "yes". Both Committee Members Woollett and Wheeler agreed. Committee Member Wheeler also interjected that the last time they talked about using black accents on the drain pipes, etc. Mr. Mansfield responded he couldn't say for sure about the colors at this time. Committee Member Woollett commented about the finish of the stucco stating he liked the relief of the smooth finishes and thought it would be very appropriate in an industrial area. Committee Member Woollett then wrapped up his portion reiterating that this represented a substantial improvement in terms of the concerns he had previously. He thought that by eliminating the third floor it changed some of the concerns he had regarding the spaces between buildings--now they aren't so tall and narrow. He had no objections to the mezzanine concept and thought the idea of the skylights up in the back were very appropriate. The applicant responded that they also tried to introduce a little bit more play in the roof too (in the front). Chair Califf then asked to what extent the brick would wrap around the ends? Mr. Reekstin responded that they are open to wrapping to the extent the DRC thought it was warranted so they would appreciate some input on it. Committee Member Wheeler stated he was hopeful the brick on the ends would back to the first return so you have a large brick mass. Chair Califf then pointed out the use of different elements and how they would give a different character from the back than the front because of a vertical division. This is created by the pilasters, the windows and the different masses. He highlighted that there is a natural division with the doors that is being disrupted so he asked the applicant to review this. Mr. Mansfield responded that the bedrooms are in the back so the intent is just to provide a means of egress as well as light and ventilation. Chair Califf then clarified that it is not necessarily the window itself, but the fact that it is treated as one mass, as opposed to the way these are very carefully delineated and separated. The applicant responded that he appreciated this being pointed out and he would take a further look. The discussion moved to the attic and the railings to be used. Committee Member Wheeler stated generally you expect the attic to be literally a bit more blank rather than articulated as the plan shows. He suggested some sort of corrugated iron or some horizontal rectangular members that would look rather industrial, even a pipe railing type look. Mr. Mansfield said they were thinking of some sort of pre-stressed cable but they really haven't delineated that yet. Chair Califf stated he thought cable might be a little too elaborate. Committee Member Wheeler stated his biggest issue was reconciling the elevations and added that he hoped they would see floor plans that match what has been done with the elevations. The applicant apologized and said the design intent is there and the floor plans work. He added that City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 6, 2005 Page 8 he thought they definitely needed to develop more of the articulation of the massing at the outside. Committee Member Wheeler also highlighted they were showing entrances in places that were not shown on the floor plan and in fact, one entrance was coming into one of the optional bedrooms. This will need to be adjusted. Further on the elevations, a plan 2R is called out and Committee Member Wheeler couldn't fathom how they would reverse a Plan 2 and make it work, unless they also reversed the Plan 1. Mr. Mansfield attempted to explain it with the use of the plans and then decided they would need to take another look at it and potentially correct it. Another concern expressed by Committee Member Wheeler was the ability to see brick as you round the corner versus having it turn into stucco on the back. He did not want to have it disintegrate and see just the fancy facade on the streetscape but not from the corridors or from the tracks. He encouraged them to have elevations of all the buildings during the next presentation so the DRC will know exactly what is going to go on each building. Mr. Reekstin responded they would definitely do that as well as incorporate some of the elements to really spruce it up. Mr. Mansfield added he will probably propose to do the street edges like they did previously, on all sides, so you can see how the buildings relate. Committee Member Wheeler responded that from his standpoint he is more interested in the orthographic projections than the renderings. Chair Califf then asked if they had given much thought to the lighting. He noted they depict: point source, some building lighting, etc. and he asked if that was more of a graphic standpoint or if they had really gotten into that yet. Mr. Reekstin replied that he thought that was what they were intending. It was pulled from the existing elements around the site and from the existing historic buildings on Chapman where they have this type of pole light. They are proposing three entry pieces. Committee Member Wheeler then asked how significant the popout will be where the shadows are shown. The response, "it might be 1'-2'." Committee Member Wheeler asked what kind of images they were thinking about on the billboard. The response was the intent is the same as the last time when they came before the DRCan orange crate kind of idea. If they are going to do that Committee Member Wheeler encouraged them to maybe do a second one somewhere, perhaps along the railroad tracks so it doesn't look like an accident or something. The applicant responded maybe they would do a plant on end. Ms. Kelly interjected there are some planning issues related to signage that would need to be addressed. Chair Califf reiterated there are no official actions on this at the moment. The applicant responded they will take away the DRC comments and come back. City ofOrange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 6, 2005 Page 9 Even though it will be resolved by the next meeting, Ms. Kelly was asked (by SRC) to bring to the DRC attention that they have 24" boxed trees that are located at some of the entrances into the alley ways, and there was concern, which they are meeting with Fire to try to resolve, to make sure they don't get in the way. City of Orange Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 6, 2005 Page 10 3. DRC No. 3998-OS - CANELL RESIDENCE Proposal to construct aone-car attached garage and bathroom. 303 N. Cambridge Street (Old Towne Orange Historic District) Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, Senior Planner Historic Preservation DRC Action: Recommendation to Planning Commission Planner Dan Ryan provided a project overview per the Staff Report and noted that the Staff Review Committee reviewed the project on June 8th and made some recommendations: 1) The driveway apron be replaced with the same style---a raised radius type of driveway per Public Works standards. 2) Provide a 20-minute rated exterior door with a closure between the garage and residence (per building code). 3) 5/8 drywall in garage walls that adjoin the residence. 4) Use aloes-flush water closet in the new bathroom. Mr. Ryan pointed out that Staff believes the one story addition will not disrupt the existing streetscape pattern. The existing floor area ratio is .22 and will be going to .30 (a minor increase). This figure does not take into account the square footage of the garage that was originally there, so it is pretty close to its original FAR. The applicant brought photographs and explained that she is not intending to remove any of the backyard area, just remove the broken concrete and replace the garage. Public comment was provided as follows: Jeff Frankel, OTPA, commented that he thought a dangerous precedent would be set by allowing an attached garage on a contributing structure, as you wouldn't have ever seen an attached garage on a bungalow of this type. He didn't think it was detachable with the design of the structure. In fact, he thought it had an adverse effect on the original structure itself. Further he thought that the applicant should be able to build the garage in its old, original footprint. He cited instances where concessions had been made in the past for individuals to keep single car garages when more parking was required, when atwo-car garage is required. His opinion is that an attached garage actually disrupts the streetscape in the neighborhood as the streetscape pattern is Bungalows with detached garages. Janet Crenshaw, OTPA, agreed with Mr. Frankel and asked the homeowner if she had given any thought to putting the windows back in. The applicant responded "yes"; however, cost would be a consideration. Committee Member Woollett asked if it would be a problem to not build the garage where it was before. The homeowner responded that it is right on the property line and you couldn't even open the door due to the setback requirement between the accessory structure and principle structure. Planner Ryan interjected that the setback requirement is at least 6 feet unless you got an administrative adjustment which could get you down to 4 feet. City of Orange Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 6, 2005 Page 11 Chair Califf inquired about the height. Planner Ryan responded that with the variance issue, any structure exceeding 10 feet in height has to be 10 feet from the rear property line. As the Committee discussed different options, Planner Ryan pointed out that the project would require Variances from the Zoning Administrator to construct the garage in the proposed attached position. It still doesn't meet the setbacks and has a height exceeding 10 feet within the rear setback. Committee Member Woolett pointed out that detaching it would make it even worse. The applicant pointed out there are a couple of attached garages on bungalows on Chapman Avenue. Planner Ryan pointed that that this project is on a small, corner lot with a substandard size so there are grounds for a Variance. Committee Member Wheeler expressed his concern about the visibility from the street. A discussion ensued about precedence with public attendee Patt.~ci commenting on what she experienced when she installed a garage at her residence. Committee Member Woollett questioned the roofing on the south elevation and on the front porch. The pitches appeared to be incorrect on some of the drawings. Other inaccuracies pointed out in the drawings included the placement of vents, the need for more of a demarcation, the need to have the new siding match up with the existing, the corner treatments previously showed mitered, and the garage appeared to be set down four risers but on the elevations it didn't show where the transition occurred. Committee Member Wheeler stated that normally they are very emphatic about how the barges are constructed so they look like the original barge; however, since they are done differently on this home, he stated that all they would request is that the extended roof overhang on the ends should match the rest of the house. He also asked to see a more careful illustration of things like the existing gable vents, the side porch, and the front porch. Different options were explored concluding with Chair Califf making a motion to continue DRC 3998-OS with the direction to the applicant to: 1) Depict the existing construction as accurately as possible. 2) Revise the design showing a 20 foot setback from the property line to the garage door (this would allow fora 20'x13'7" garage). 3) Have window and door trims match the existing. 4) Have the corner treatments and the sidings match the existing. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Jon Califf, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSENT: Donnie DeWees ABSTAIN: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 6, 2005 Page 12 4. DRC No. 3999-OS -SIGN & SERVICES COMPANY (LINDA SMITH) Proposed to construct a new monument sign for Timothy Donahue, Law Office. 374 S. Glassell Street (Old Towne Orange Historic District) Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, Senior Planner Historic Preservation DRC Action: Final Determination Chair Califf considered consenting this item except the color of the brick was questionable. The applicant responded it is standard brick and there was a problem with ink saturation on the drawings. Public comment was provided as follows: Janet Crenshaw, OTPA, asked for clarification about the number of signs and their placement. The applicant responded that the second sign was required for people to see it as they are driving. Jeff Frankel, OTPA, questioned the proximity to the side walk stating it seemed to be very close to the sidewalk if the positioning on the drawing was accurate. Planner Ryan interjected there is a 2' setback. Committee Member Wheeler questioned the placement stating he had measured the distance and had come up with about 4'6" from the back of the sidewalk to the existing wall. Chair Califf interjected the property line is usually the back of the sidewalk. The applicant added that from their survey they show the back of the sidewalk is 2' and she acknowledged that would place the sign right up against the fence. The discussion ensued about the actual space available, whether it would be adequate and what options could be explored to eliminate the appearance of it being squeezed up against the wall. Committee Member Wheeler suggested the applicant obtain an accurate measurement of the space available. He also questioned what materials are being used. The applicant responded "it is a sand blasted monument sign so it is wood". Committee Member Wheeler asked how it would be constructed. The applicant was not sure, offered to find out and asked what would be acceptable. Committee Member Wheeler responded "I think if it was a metal box painted appropriately with a sandblasted wood block added to it, I don't have any objection to it." Committee Member Wheeler then commented on the colors asking if they would use the same color palette on the sign as they used on the house, specifically, atoned-down white (versus a bright white) and the same dark color. The applicant responded she didn't think that was a problem. It was also clarified that the brick should match the brick that is there. The applicant responded that is what they are doing. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 6, 2005 Page 13 Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve DRC No. 3999-OS with the condition: I) The sign be sandblasted with a wood application. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Jon Califf, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSENT: Donnie DeWees ABSTAIN: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 6, 2005 Page 14 DRC No. 4007-OS -COSTA AZUL (SHARON GALVAN) Proposed to construct a new awning. 121 N. Lemon Street (Old Towne Orange Historic District) Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, Senior Planner Historic Preservation DRC Action: Final Determination This item was withdrawn from the Agenda. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 6, 2005 Page 15 6. DRC No. 4012-OS -THE DISTRICT LOUNGE (MARIO MARVIC) Proposed painted wall sign, facade window restoration, removal & replacement of mechanical equipment on roof, and exterior masonry repairs. 223 W. Chapman Avenue (Old Towne Orange Historic District, former W. O. Hart Orange Post Office building). Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, Senior Planner Historic Preservation DRC Action: Final Determination on all items except sign variance, which is a recommendation to the Zoning Administrator This item was withdrawn from the Agenda. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 6, 2005 Page 16 A motion was made by Committee Member Woollett to approve the minutes of the April 6, 2005 meeting as amended; approve the minutes of the April 20, 2005 meeting as submitted, and to adjourn until the next scheduled session. AYES: Jon Califf, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSENT: Donnie DeWees ABSTAIN: None MOTION CARRIED.