Loading...
09-01-2004 DRC MinutesCITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES September 1, 2004 Committee Members Present: Craig Wheeler Joe Woollett Donnie Dewees Staff in Attendance: Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager Dan Ryan, Senior Historic Planner Howard Morris, Landscape Assessment/District Coordinator Committee Member Absent: Jon Califf Administrative Session - 5:00 P.M. The Committee met for an administrative session beginning at 5:00 p.m. The meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m. Regular Session - 5:30 P.M. A motion was made by Committee Member Joe Woollett to approve the June 16, 2004 minutes as submitted. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Donnie Dewees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSENT: Jon Califf ABSTAINED: None MOTION CARRIED A motion was made by Committee Member Craig Wheeler to approve the July 7, 2004 minutes as submitted. SECOND: Donnie Dewees AYES: Donnie Dewees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSENT: Jon Califf ABSTAINED: None MOTION CARRIED City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for September 1, 2004 Page 2 1. DRC No. 3611-01 - CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY'S ALL FAITHS CHAPEL STAINED GLASS WINDOW MATERIALS Review of stained glass window materials for All Faiths Chapel. One University Drive (northwest corner of University Drive and Orange Street) Staff Contact: Kim Chafin, Associate Planner DRC Action: Final Determination Committee Member Donnie Dewees recused himself from this discussion, as his residence is within 500 ft. of Chapman University. Kim Chaffin, Associate Planner, gave the Staff Report. She reminded the Committee Members that the DRC had approved the materials and colors in February 2002, when the chapel was approved. At the time, there was a question regarding what type of stain glass was to be used. It had not been determined where the stain glass was going to be used, so the Condition of Approval was that the stained glass would come back before the DRC for approval. The University selected a translucent art glass. For each elevation there's a different color to represent the four seasons of the year. As the sun traverses across the sky, there is a different experience inside the chapel with the light coming through the glass at the various times of the day. Ms. Chaffin displayed photographs showing the exterior and interior elevation and the effects of the glass to the Committee Members, and she described the various artistic elements of the piece. Detailed descriptions were given in the written Staff Report. The public was invited to comment. Jeff Frankel, 384 S. Orange Street, OTPA, stated that he thought the glass looked nice and mentioned he had not been over to the chapel to see the effects from the interior. He asked about the exterior facades, stating he believed there was more limestone on the exterior in the original plans he had reviewed. He was told that the earlier version had limestone colored bands, but it has been changed to limestone colored brick, so the bands are still there, but they are not actual limestone. Janet Crenshaw, 464 N. Shaffer, OTPA, offered her congratulations on a job well done. The Committee discussed the item in more detail. Joe Woollett mentioned that he understood there was a skylight in the main worship area that had been covered over. The architect, David Martin, it was explained, was trying to analyze the filtering of the main skylight as it brings in a lot of white light. The more the skylight is covered, the more the colored light filters into the chapel. So he is trying to determine the proper balance so it does not overwhelm the colored light. Craig Wheeler stated he was very pleased, overall, with the finished product. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for September 1, 2004 Page 3 A motion was made by Committee Member Joe Woollett to approve the project as submitted. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAINED: RECUSED Craig Wheeler Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett None Jon Califf None Donnie Dewees MOTION CARRIED City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for September 1, 2004 Page 4 2. DRC No. 3835-03 -SCOTT & MARI MONTGOMERY Proposed window modifications to an approved plan. 204 N. Waverly Street, (Old Towne Orange Historic District) Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, Senior Planner Historic Preservation Item recommended for approval by the DRC to Planning Commission on 10/22/03 DRC Action: Final Determination Daniel Ryan, Senior Planner Historic Preservation, gave the Staff Report. He noted that the DRC had seen this item previously on October 22, 2003. Scott Montgomery explained that the item was back before the DRC because the Montgomery's wanted to get approval on some project modifications, including: (1) Change-out of all previously approved multi-paned, true- divided light windows to single or double-hung wood windows; (2) Modification of the shape of the upper floor windows, and (3) Increase the number of French Doors on the interior patio from two to three doors. Mr. Ryan stated that staff was recommending the approval of the additional French door on the interior patio, but that they did not recommend approving the changes to the true divided light multi-pane windows including the changes requested to the upper floor windows. Staff felt that the windows as originally proposed were more reflective of the Spanish Colonial Style. Mr. Montgomery wanted to add that the house currently had single-pane windows, so that it why it was originally drawn that way. Janet Crenshaw, 464 N. Shaffer, stated that she was delighted that the original front windows were put back into the design. She felt the divided light windows were far prettier. Donnie Dewees asked for clarification that the ground floor windows, as shown in the plans, were the existing windows. Mr. Montgomery replied that the single pane windows are what currently exist on the house now. He noted that they were in good shape, and he had done restoration on several of the windows. He also stated that currently they had a large picture window and two double-hung windows in the front bedroom of the house, that would tie the design to the back of the house where they had proposed French Doors, and would open up the flow in the house. Craig Wheeler asked if the Montgomery's planned to add windows to the sides of the French Doors, and Mr. Montgomery stated that it was his intention to do so (and they would be a 1' wide fixed panel on each side). The drawings indicated the French Doors only. Mr. Wheeler reminded the DRC that there had been quite a debate originally because of the vast change in style of the 1950's one-story, non-contributing Stucco Box to the proposed two-story Spanish Colonial Revival Style. One of the reasons he had been in favor of approving it originally was because he believed the owner was going to do a very high quality conversion to something would be an accurate representation of a previous style. The plans as they are being submitted at this DRC meeting now worry him because they go away from that original intention. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for September 1, 2004 Page 5 Mr. Montgomery stated that both he and his wife were in the design field, and he was also concerned about keeping design integrity -however, budget was also a major concern for them. A motion was made by Committee Member Craig Wheeler to approve the project (including some of the changes to the original design) with the following conditions: 1. The original true-divided light windows be maintained throughout. 2. The original square second floor window pattern be maintained. 3. Side lights maybe installed on both sides of the French doors proposed for the east elevation. SECOND: Joe Woollett AYES: Donnie Dewees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSENT: Jon Califf ABSTAINED: None MOTION CARRIED City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for September 1, 2004 Page 6 3. DRC No. 3919-04 -PETER AND ANGELA SANTIVANEZ Proposal to add a 493 sq. ft. addition on to a one-story 1934 Bungalow. 172 South Pine Street (Old Towne Historic District) Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, Senior Planner Historic Preservation Continued from 6-21-04 DRC meeting for a decision on the stucco addition DRC Action: Final Determination Daniel Ryan, Senior Planner Historic Preservation gave the Staff Report. He noted that this item had been continued from the June 21, 2004, DRC meeting. The applicants have decided to use a matching stucco finish on the new addition rather than the approved wood clapboard siding. The building form has been modified from the previous proposal with afront-facing gable to a side- facing gable roof. The setback from the front building was increased from four feet to five feet. Jeff Frankel, 384 S. Orange Street, OTPA, stated that his issue was with the addition to the contributing structure. The house as it stands, retains all the architectural elements of the original bungalow style with the exception of the clapboard siding. It would be inappropriate to continue the same treatment onto the addition because it is inappropriate to begin with. Also, he was opposed to the proposal to place the addition so close to the front of the lot, which would alter the streetscape. He reminded the DRC that they had reviewed a project less than a year ago at 255 N. Cleveland, which was very similar. The setback of that addition with the existing structure was about the same, and the Committee asked them to rethink that and come back with a new plan. It would be inconsistent to approve this plan. What Mr. Frankel would propose, on behalf of the OTPA, would be to set the addition back further off of the rear of the existing structure. He cited the standards on Page 27, Building Design, Residential Structures, under additions, where it stated "In order to preserve facades of existing buildings and to generally maintain the existing character or block face, the construction of additions to existing contributing buildings are generally discouraged in yards adjoining public streets and should instead be confined to side and rear yards which are generally out of public view." Note: Mr. Wheeler later stated that in regards to the residence on Cleveland, there were different proportions to that structure, and also the owners were doing a different type of porch along the front of the structure. Janet Crenshaw, 464 N. Shaffer, OTPA, referenced a project at 357 N. Shaffer, where the addition was being proposed to the rear of the structure and the applicants in that case were being asked to make the addition match the siding which was under the asbestos that had been added later, just in case at some future date the owners decided to remove the asbestos siding. Her concern was the DRC setting precedent and then not following it, in addition to going against the standards. Mr. Ryan stated that staff is recommending the revised design with the side-facing gable, and to add an additional window on the west end of the roof elevation to break the space up, and that clapboard siding be used on the exterior. Mr. Wheeler asked for clarification -did staff mean City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for September 1, 2004 Page 7 clapboard on the exterior of the addition, or on both the addition and the existing structure. Mr. Ryan noted that it would be on the addition, so that if the owners wanted to go back to the original material on the existing structure later, it would match. Mr. Santivanez said that when he left the meeting the last time, stucco would be appropriate, and the clapboard siding would not be an issue anymore. Mr. Ryan stated that there was discussion that if the new addition was going to be in stucco, that would change the design. Joe Woollett stated that he recalled that the reason the DRC wanted this project to come back before the committee was if the owner's decided to do stucco, and the owners were given that option, because the building was considered contributing, even though it had stucco on it. There were concerns about the design, however, if the house was going to be done in clapboard all around, then those design concerns were not as important. In stucco, the committee would not be as lenient on the design. And therefore, he felt that what Mr. Santivanez had done was exactly what the committee had originally asked him to do -altered the design to the committee's recommendations. Mr. Dewees stated that he also agreed with that recollection, even though there had been some concern voiced by the OTPA regarding this way of thinking. Mr. Wheeler stated that he was personally opposed to increasing the amount of stucco on a contributing structure. A motion was made by Committee Member Joe Woollett to approve the project subject to the following conditions: 1. Projecting barges are framed the original way. SECOND: Donnie Dewees AYES: Donnie Dewees, Joe Woollett NOES: Craig Wheeler ABSENT: Jon Califf ABSTAINED: None MOTION CARRIED City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for September 1, 2004 Page 8 4. DRC No.3921-04 -THOMAS WALSH Dormer addition and fire repair to a 1910 Bungalow. 390 N. Shaffer Street (Old Towne Orange Historic District) Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, Senior Planner Historic Preservation Item continued from July 21, and August 18, 2004 DRC meetings Revised plans to be submitted at meeting DRC Action: Final Determination Daniel Ryan, Senior Planner Historic Preservation, gave the Staff Report. He noted that from the last DRC meeting, the applicant had sufficient direction to solve some of the problems related to the pop-out dormer on one side, the height and placement of the other dormer, and a reconfiguration of the upstairs to allow for more usable space and to allow for the original dormer to be placed so as to retain the integrity of the existing building. Phil Bennett, 12361 Baja Panorama, Santa Ana, represented the applicant as the architect for the project. He noted that the designs had gone back to the original gable roof that was over the pop- out for the dining room. In order to meet the egress requirements, they are proposing a casement window, which they understand is not consistent with the other windows on the existing building. It was aesthetically made to look like adouble-hung window so that it would match. He described several other smaller changes to the committee, including reducing the addition from 480 sq. ft. to 433 sq. ft. Janet Crenshaw, 464 N. Shaffer, OTPA, stated she was not at last meeting. She asked for clarification that the new addition would make the building look the same as it does right now i.e., not changing the roof line). She also noted that the plans, once again, were not at the library. Mr. Ryan stated that staff did not have them either, because they knew (from discussions at the previous DRC meeting) the direction the applicant was going to go in. Jeff Frankel, 384 S. Orange, OTPA, felt that it seemed like all the suggestions and comments made at the last meeting had been done. He was happy that the applicant had decided to retain the feature on the pop-out, and felt the overall project looked good. The Committee Members felt that the applicant had complied with all of their requests from the previous meeting. A motion was made by Committee Member Donnie Dewees to approve the project subject to the following conditions: 1. Projecting barges will be framed in the traditional manner. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for September 1, 2004 Page 9 SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Donnie Dewees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSENT: Jon Califf ABSTAINED: None MOTION CARRIED City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for September 1, 2004 Page 10 5. DRC No. 3939-04 -TURNER FACADE REMODEL Proposal to remodel an existing non-contributing commercial facade in the Plaza. 119 S. Glassell Street, (Old Towne Orange Historic District) Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, Senior Planner Historic Preservation DRC Action: Final Determination The project was continued due to the lack of a quorum. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for September 1, 2004 Page 11 6. DRC No. 3940-04 - AQIL RESIDENCE Proposed review of new 6,756 sq. ft., two-story, single-family residence. 7021 Hidden Oak Lane Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, Senior Planner DRC Action: Final Determination for compliance with City's Infill Residential Design Guidelines. This item was approved on the Consent Calendar. A motion was made by Committee Member Joe Woollett to approve the project as submitted. SECOND: Donnie Dewees AYES: Donnie Dewees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSENT: Jon Califf ABSTAINED: None MOTION CARRIED City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for September 1, 2004 Page 12 7. DRC No. 3941-04 - AVELAR RESIDENCE Addition to single-family residence exceeding 50% of the area of existing residence. 614 S. Fairmont Way Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, Senior Planner Historic Preservation DRC Action: Final Determination for compliance with City's Infill Residential Design Guidelines. Daniel Ryan, Senior Planner Historic Preservation, gave the Staff Report. The applicant proposes to convert an existing detached garage into a living area, construct a new entry between the garage and the existing house, add an addition to the north and west sides of the residence, and construct a new attached two-car garage on the north side of the residence. The existing structures were constructed in 1958. On August 12, 2004, the Zoning Administrator approved an administrative adjustment to allow atwo-foot reduction (20%) of the required ten-foot (east) street side yard setback for the construction of the new porch entrance. One of the conditions of approval was that the project be reviewed and approved by the City's Design Review Committee. Staff believes that the project (excluding the applicant's approval for an Administrative Adjustment on the side setback) conforms to the minimum development standards for the R 1-7 zone. Staff believes the architectural design of the proposed residential structure is dissimilar in design when compared to neighboring residential structures. The proposed modern design is out of character with the predominant architectural style found in the immediate neighborhood. Staff is also proposing a reduction in the entry-way height. Staff feels that the increase of building area by over 50% compared to the surrounding properties will give the appearance that the site is over-built. Staff feels the scale and massing are okay, just several individual elements need to be addressed -including the entry-way. Luis Avelar, the applicant showed several pictures of the neighboring houses to the DRC. He felt that adding the tall entry would give some extra character to the house, otherwise it would be straight/flat walls with no break. Mr. Avelar was asked if his neighbors had reviewed the proposed changes, and he stated that they had and everyone seemed happy with it. He stated that he had, thus far, not made any changes to the house, and he pointed out where he currently only had a partial driveway, so that his truck protruded on the sidewalk when parked there. He felt his neighbors would appreciate the remodel. Donnie Dewees felt that, proportionately, the proposed entry was not in sync with the rest of the structure, and the entry way was enormous in comparison to the rest of the street. Craig Wheeler also felt that in context to the rest of the neighborhood, the entry way was out of sync. He stated that he would much prefer that the applicant go to the context of the medium that is currently in the neighborhood (i.e., away from the arches and heavy form). He reminded the applicant that this was the reason for the City's new Infill Design Guidelines. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for September 1, 2004 Page 13 The applicant asked for clarification regarding the suggestions that the DRC wanted him to lower the entrance and change the style of the house. The applicant noted that the curved roof the on the drawing was for illustration purposes only, and he was going to use flat the on the roof. Craig Wheeler stated that it needed to be clarified that it was not a curved the roof. Mr. Wheeler also requested doing away with the arched openings on the windows and doors, to reduce the height of the entry so that it has the same plate height as the rest of the house (although if the applicant wanted to pop it out, that would be fine), and do away with the more contemporary forms and columns, etc., that detracted from the ranch style in the neighborhood. The applicant also asked for clarification of height on the entry. Donnie Dewees suggested that the new plate height should be no more than 2' above the existing facia. Mr. Dewees felt that, as proposed, the design would turn out quite differently than the applicant was perceiving; thus, the need to make the heights in proper proportion to one another. The applicant agreed to go back and look into the suggested recommendations, and the Committee would like to see the proposed changes at a future meeting. A motion was made by Committee Member Donnie Dewees to continue the project. SECOND:Joe Woollett AYES:Donnie Dewees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES:None ABSENT:Jon Califf ABSTAINED:None MOTION CARRIED City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for September 1, 2004 Page 14 8. DRC No. 3945-04 -CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF ORANGE COUNTY Preliminary review of site, building, and landscaping plans for a new parking structure. East side of Main Street approximately 400 feet south of La Veta Avenue Staff Contact: Christopher Carnes, Senior Planner DRC Action: Preliminary Review Christopher Carnes, Senior Planner, gave the Staff Report. The proposal before the DRC is a preliminary review of the plans. This project will also go before the Planning Commission at a later date because of the environmental documentation required. He noted that the applicant is proposing a 9-level parking structure and a pedestrian bridge over La Veta Avenue. The project site is on an approximately 4 acre parcel located 400 feet south of La Veta Avenue on the east side of Main Street. The purpose of the parking structure is to provide needed parking for existing CHOC Hospital and Clinic activities located at the northeast corner of Main Street and La Veta Avenue. The applicant is not submitting any building plans with the parking structure. The applicant brought a team to answer any questions: Phyllis Nelson, MS, RD, Executive Director, CHOC Bill Cathcart, 134 S. Glassell David Callis, 20201 S.W. Birch, Newport Beach Committee Member Joe Woollett asked which building(s) the new parking structure would serve. Ms. Nelson replied that it would service both CHOC and the 1201 Office Building. Craig Wheeler asked about the bridge, stating that (1) he did not see the existing bridge getting much use, and (2) he would prefer to see the design of the new proposed bridge be straight across the street, rather than at an angle. The applicant's responded that because of the way the existing bridge was designed, it's use, and how it starts and ends, the average pedestrian crossing the street does not end up at street level, but rather ends up in a building on the south side. On the new design, it would be doable (in fact they had discussed this) to make the bridge go straight across. Joe Woollett asked what the current thinking was regarding the CHOC sign that was being proposed to be added to the bridge structure. Craig Wheeler felt that it would be confusing to those viewing it because you could see it through the structure on both sides. The applicants stated that the designs were quite preliminary, and they would be thinking this through. Donnie Dewees asked if the trusses were tube steel, powder coated, and the answer was yes. Craig Wheeler asked if the bridge was covered and lighted? The answer was yes. Joe Woollett voiced concern for the lighting of the inside of the parking structure, so that it not be too harsh as it will be viewed from the freeway. It was explained that the interior and exterior of the building would be painted so as to reduce the overall glare. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for September 1, 2004 Page 15 Donnie Dewees asked why there was such a large departure, design wise, from the existing bridge. The designers stated that the materials and architecture of the existing bridge appeared too heavy for a bridge and the proposed designed used glass and steel frames and an open design to give the structure a lighter appearance. The proposed design is also to provide a unique identity for the CHOC campus and its design is to be used as a unifying element. Craig Wheeler felt that regarding the elevation, perhaps the applicants could think of something bolder. They stated they felt that was a welcome comment. The applicant felt that the colors proposed would help diminish the mass and scale of the bridge, and give it a floating sensation across the expanse, without making it feel precarious (i.e., that those traversing the bridge would feel it was strong enough). The applicants further gave an overview of the actual parking structure, noting that it had a double helix ramp structure, and they explained that the benefit of that ramp system is that it allows, in one circuit, the regular user of the parking structure to transverse two floors, making ingress and egress from the structure much easier. The Committee also discussed the use of landscaping. The applicants pointed out that they wanted to ensure that whatever was proposed would be in as good a shape several years from now as it is at the beginning. They did not want to create a major upkeep situation for the parking structure's owners. Also, they were limited by the size of the planters and their location. Following the above suggestions, Joe Woollett asked when/if the DRC would see the design plans back again. He stated that he would like to see the plans before the applicant is ready to begin construction, so they could offer any further suggestions. Chris Carnes stated that if the Committee felt comfortable with the proposed direction, they would be able to see the final plans prior to submission to the Planning Commission. A motion was made by Committee Member Craig Wheeler to approve the preliminary concept of the project. SECOND:Joe Woollett AYES:Donnie Dewees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES:None ABSENT:Jon Califf ABSTAINED:None MOTION CARRIED N:\C D D\P L N G\Council Commissions Committees\DRC 9-01-04 drem.DOC