Loading...
09-06-2006 DRC MinutesCITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES -FINAL Committee Members Present: Committee Members Absent: Jon Califf Bill Cathcart Donnie DeWees Craig Wheeler Joe Woollett None Staff in Attendance: Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager Anne Fox, Contract Staff 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. Regular Session - 5:30 P.M. The meeting adjourned at approximately 8:12 p. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 6 September 2006 Page 2 of 23 CONSENT ITEMS All matters that are announced as Consent Items are considered to be routine by the Design Review Committee and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of said items unless members of the Design Review Committee, staff or the public request specific items to be removed from the Consent Items for separate action. The following three items were moved to consent: 1) Agenda Item 3. DRC No. 4082-06 -METRO PCS (a FLETCHER A motion to approve this item by consent with the Staff recommendations was made by Bill Cathcart: SECOND: Joe Woollett AYES:Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES:None ABSTAIN:None ABSENT:None MOTION CARRIED. 2) Agenda Item 6. DRC No. 4066-06 -IMPERIAL STATIONS SIGNAGE A motion to approve this item by consent with the Staff recommendations was made by Craig Wheeler: SECOND: Donnie DeWees AYES:Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES:None ABSTAIN:None ABSENT:None MOTION CARRIED. 3) Agenda Item 7. DRC No. 4118-06 - SCHMIDT RESIDENCE A motion to approve this item by consent with the Staff recommendations was made by Craig Wheeler: SECOND: Bill Cathcart AYES:Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES:None ABSTAIN:None ABSENT:None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 6 September 2006 Page 3 of 23 1. DRC No. 4096-06 - KULCSAR RESIDENCE A request to construct a 1,989 square foot 2-story room addition to an existing 1,952 square foot, 1-story, single-family dwelling and an attached 400 square foot two-car garage. 1899 North Chouteau Street Staff Contact: de Koven James, 714-744-7219, jdekoven(a~cit. of~ge.org DRC Action: Initial Review and Comment Planning Manager Leslie Aranda Roseberry provided a project overview. The applicant stated: They have been working with the Planning Department since April and since that time they have made several changes. When they received the Staff Report requesting additional changes they were somewhat discouraged so at this point they initiated a petition and circulated it amongst their neighbors. In total they received nine signatures on the petition, which included their own. The signature on the petition was to express agreement with the project as proposed. Many neighbors indicated a willingness to come before the City to speak about the project. The applicant provided a package consisting of maps and photographs of surrounding homes. The applicant provided a review of the package content. Comparisons were drawn to the photographs to illustrate what they did and did not want to do. No public comment was provided on this item. Chair Califf stated that when he looked at this project his initial thoughts were: 1) Many of the examples provided were of 2-story residences and most of them were set further back from the front of the garage. 2) The neighborhood would benefit if the applicant's addition were set back a little bit further from the front of the garage. With the cantilever of the attic and the overhang, you lose some of the benefit of setting it back 3' as it pretty much brings it back in plane with the front of the garage. 3) The elevation facing the neighbors appears to be long and tall and may affect the neighboring property along the back. The long facade could be improved if the addition was shifted to provide a little extra side yard. The applicant's representative stated: The neighbor next to them that is positioned further back from the street has a look that isn't even subdued. To step something back isn't always necessarily the best approach. The Staff Report seems to indicate a lot of the things are in fashion with the architectural design of the proposed house---it reflects the elements of a ranch home including deep eaves, overhangs, hip roofs, wood trimmed windows, etc. and it avoids changes in the neighborhood character. It meets all the guidelines and includes the appropriate materials. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 6 September 2006 Page 4 of 23 Chair Califf responded that often times when it comes to the materials, it comes down to how they're utilized i.e. the materials may correspond to the ranch design style, but the arrangement and details are not consistent with the style. The same goes for the size and the manner in which they're placed. The applicant commented that the neighbor has no objection to the tall back wall as part of the way it is designed is so they would be looking over their own yard versus the neighbor looking over their yard. When the neighbor built on they began to take over part of the applicant's privacy but the applicant knew it wasn't going to be an issue going forward. Setting aside the mass and size of the addition (which he agreed it would be better if the second story was set back further), Committee Member Wheeler stated that his biggest problem with what they are doing is they need to pick something that is appropriate for the style. He referenced quiddity" in the architectural sense and pointed out that the applicant has a fairly unique house and they shouldn't depart from the style unless they want to change the entire house. The addition should use the same form and materials as the original. Examples provided were the addition of wood trim and brackets as well as a different style of windows scream, "This is an addition, we're adding to the house." Committee Member Wheeler stated the addition should be so subtle and well done it doesn't appear to be an addition. He suggested they re-study the exterior elevations very carefully, provide fewer drawings per page, increase the scale showing what exists there presently and illustrate what they are doing is either complimentary to what is there now or they will be removing and replacing what is there now with something cohesive. Committee Member DeWees stated he had the exact same comment, as it appears they've steepened the roof pitch and he would like to see everything match on the addition. He expressed concern with the balcony placement out front. The applicant asked if they didn't have the balcony and matched the neighbor's property with its design, if that would be more appropriate. Committee Member DeWees responded affirmatively and that he would be more inclined to support it. Committee Member Wheeler interjected that he could go either way, if it was a nicely designed balcony it would be acceptable as long as it kept with the neighborhood and the rest of the design of the house. Committee Member DeWees stated he thought that would be hard to accomplish, as you couldn't find a balcony that matches so you'd have to do something different. Another concern expressed by Committee Member DeWees was a privacy issue and he asked if the stairs could be moved so as not to look directly into the neighbor's back yard. The applicant responded that her flowerbed would be impacted if they moved it. Committee Member Wheeler stated the exterior stairway configuration with the walkway causes one to conclude the game room could be used as a second dwelling unit. The applicant responded it is really intended to provide easy access to the game room and the neighbors have reviewed and approved the plan. Committee Member DeWees stated he didn't give much weight to petitions as the neighbors could be planning to relocate and the objective is to plan for the future. The applicant stated she had no objection to putting in trees to address the privacy issue. Committee Member Cathcart interjected that the problem with using plant material as the only privacy screen is it could easily be removed. Committee Member DeWees interjected that is the reason he proposed movement City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 6 September 2006 Page 5 of 23 of the stairway, as it is a more permanent solution. Committee Member Wheeler suggested the applicant ask their engineer why he is showing a very large cricket (which doesn't show up on the elevations) on the engineering drawings? Committee Member Wheeler stated it is not aesthetically appealing and in his opinion is totally unnecessary. Committee Member Wheeler cautioned the applicant to watch the window trim, as they appear to be showing stucco box out window trim on the new construction, which is unlike what is on the original residence. The applicant responded that it is actually wood. Committee Member Wheeler stated that is the reason it needs to be very clearly described on the drawing. Committee Member Cathcart commented that the survey on one and two story houses provided by the applicant is irrelevant to him as he wouldn't be opposed to a well done two story since it has already been done in the neighborhood. His concern is with the setback from the front of the garage and how they handle the balcony. He could be supportive if they push the top floor back. Committee Member Woollett asked the applicant if they submitted their plans in April. The applicant responded affirmatively. Committee Member Woollett asked the applicant what changes they had made since the original plan submission. The applicant responded initially the balcony was overhanging the garage, then it was changed to be even with the garage and then they were told to move it back 3'6". Committee Member Woollett explored further what changes may not have been made as requested by Staff and stated that a review of this nature is usually indicative of some frustration on the part of Staff. The applicant responded there is frustration on their part as well, as any time there is a change required to the drawings it costs them $1500.00 and they've now had three sets of plans drawn and they're still trying to determine what is required. Committee Member Woollett stated he has gone to the site and is quite familiar with the neighborhood. He agreed with the design comments provided by his peers and added anything they could do to mitigate the extent to which the second floor addition extends to the street would be a benefit. He also stated that if the position were left the way it is, although he doesn't like it, he wouldn't deny it. He asked if 2'-3' could be removed from the room as it has a tremendous impact on the neighborhood. The applicant asked if 2'-3' is all they are talking about and if they would support the project as is so they wouldn't have to spend another $1500.00. Committee Member DeWees responded he is inclined to support it if they matched the roofing style and made the addition subtler. Chair Califf stated if they are going to contemplate not moving it back, one of the things that bothered him is the fact the balcony reduces the affect of the roof and increases the apparent height of the wall. If they pushed it back an additional 3' they might be able to allow the roof to slope up and create the guardrail for the balcony. Rather than cantilevering it out, sloping the roof back would affect nothing except the attic and it would help reduce the mass. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 6 September 2006 Page 6 of 23 An illustration on the drawing was provided for the applicant. The applicant responded they have no problem with moving it back an additional 3'. Chair Califf stated they should retain the distinctive features of the style---the way the barge travels out and the upturn. Committee Member DeWees offered to have any of the Committee Members review a sketch of what they'll be changing. Chair Califf made a motion to continue DRC No. 4096-06 with the input from the Committee. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. The applicant asked if it was possible to come back to the Committee quickly and how could they get the sketch to them? Chair Califf responded they should work with their planner and Leslie. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 6 September 2006 Page 7 of 23 2. DRC No. 4136-06 - CENTEX HOMES A request to review the building and landscaping plans fora 114 dwelling unit residential development. Planning Area No. 4 -Del Rio Planned Community (west of Glassell Street and north of Lincoln Avenue) Staff Contact: Christopher Carnes, (714) 744-7220, ccarnes c_r,cityoforan e.org DRC Action: Final Determination A project overview was provided by Senior Planner, Christopher Carnes, during which he highlighted: The City has reviewed the landscaping plan and the plant materials are consistent with what has previously been approved. Pursuant to the Del Rio Guidelines, the paseo is 10' with a 42" wall. No public comment was provided on this item. Inputs provided by Committee Member Wheeler were as follows: 1. It would seem that the greatest square footage of building elevations a person would see while driving along the major roads in the project are those of the end elevations of the buildings. He asked if it would be possible to add more enhancements to these end elevations such as: a) Wrap-around or stand-alone balconies? b) Pop-outs possibly with feature siding? c) Projecting roofs over prominent windows? d) More exciting gable end vents? The applicant responded that if they do a balcony it would encroach in the setback. Mr. Carnes stated if they went 2'-3' into the setback and it's only accessible from the interior of the structure that would be acceptable. The applicant pointed out that trees would also soften the elevations. Committee Member Woollett pointed out that Juneberry is a pretty dismal street as it's all ends and he added it might not be necessary to make the changes on all the buildings if a streetscape was available that shows how they all line up. Some specific locations were pointed to on the drawings for the applicant. The applicant stated they would do some further review and provide some revised sketches. 2. Why do buildings 6, 8, and 10 need to use reverse plans. Wouldn't it be better to do flipped buildings rather than reverse buildings so as to not see the same plan on each side while walking down the paseos? City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 6 September 2006 Page 8 of 23 The applicant responded this would be an easy flip. 3. The Design Guidelines also show landscape pockets between each garage door on each side of the driveways. Your plans show them on only one side. The applicant responded it is because one has a shortened driveway approach and with one 3' and the other 1' they thought it would look better combined into one. Committee Member Cathcart concurred stating he would hate to see them take one usable space from one side to create two unusable spaces on both sides. Instead he suggested using vines and having them trail across. 4. How is trash going to be handled? Will you be using dumpsters? The applicant responded they have not met with Waste Management on the project yet but they're assuming the trash cans will be picked up (in the alleys) from in front of the garages. Committee Member Wheeler stated he could see issues with trash cans in front of the garage doors and he thought it would be nice if there were a place the trash cans could go. The applicant stated they are not doing dumpsters anywhere in the community. Committee Member Woollett asked where the trash cans would be stored when not in use. The applicant responded there is an extra space for them in the garage. 5. The 3-Plea right end elevations for Elevations A & B seem to be drawn in reverse and there seems to be a second floor window missing on Elevation A. 6. Do you intend to carry the horizontal siding shown on the "B" elevations for both the 3-Plex and the 4-Plex around to the nearest reentrant corner? This does not show on the end elevations. The applicant was told this is a no/no and asked to please carry them around. Committee Member Wheeler pointed out that the end elevations for the "B" elevations for each complex do show corner boards and a little bit of horizontal siding on the garage side in one location. 7. Are the Elevation C versions of both clusters really going to have exposed rafter tails all around the buildings? The applicant responded affirmatively and indicated it's hard to see them on the drawings. 8. The Del Rio Design Guidelines seem to say that three story elements would be acceptable in Planning Area 4. Did you consider using some three-story elements to add variety and to possibly reduce the buildings' footprints? The applicant responded they originally had athree-story element and based on consumer market research they learned that three-story elements are not a huge hit now, as residences don't want to climb stairs. They have built this product in Ontario and based on the success there, they chose to repeat it. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 6 September 2006 Page 9 of 23 9. What more can be done to enhance privacy between second floor windows? The windows of the middle bedrooms at each end of the 4-flex seem to be pretty much aligned. Could high windows be used on one wall of the bedroom that have window on two walls? I would very much like to see a privacy study similar to that we have requested for the other phases of this project. The applicant responded Mr. Carnes had already asked about this, but due to the space between the buildings (15') and the location of trees, they didn't think it would be an issue. Committee Member Wheeler reinforced that he thought the middle bedrooms would be affected and they could get some offset. The applicant expressed concerns about furnish ability but agreed to take another look at it. 10. Please put a prominent note on the drawings that the builder is to make all reasonable efforts to group plumbing and mechanical vents so as to reduce the number of roof penetrations. The applicant agreed to add the notes. Committee Member Woollett expressed a concern about shutter violations (refer to Page 4 of the three-plea Elevation C and Page 4 of the four-plex Elevation C) and asked that the drawings be revised to show they are the correct proportions (to scale). The applicant indicated they had the color boards and roof materials available for review. Committee Member DeWees stated he thought this project was very well done and Committee Member Woollett complimented the presentation. The applicant stated the biggest thing was the enhancements and several committee members agreed. Committee Member Wheeler stated he personally would be willing to see trading some of the things on the front elevations around to the end elevations. The applicant stated they thought this could be done. The applicant stated that the recreation center and spa were flipped so it's away from the building and noise won't be a concern. The cabana is tucked away in the back. Chair Califf asked if there were barbeque facilities. The applicant replied "no, they are messy and dirty, as people don't keep them up." Committee Member Woollett asked what is the Greenfield Room? The applicant responded it's the communications room for internet service. The association will be providing internet service to every homebuyer in River Bend. This will be an air-conditioned hub. The applicant asked if they could come back in two weeks. Mr. Carnes responded the agenda for the 20t is pretty much set but since this is a continued item they could do a cover memo itemizing what was requested and what was done; this would make it move along pretty quick. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 6 September 2006 Page 10 of 23 Chair Califf made a motion to continue DRC No. 4136-06. SECOND: Joe Woollett AYES:Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES:None ABSTAIN:None ABSENT:None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 6 September 2006 Page 11 of 23 3. DRC No. 4082-06 -METRO PCS @ FLETCHER A request to construct a stealth wireless communication facility including an equipment enclosure. 410 West Fletcher Avenue Staff Contact: Anne Fox, (714) 744-7229, afox(a~cityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination A motion to approve this item by consent with the Staff recommendations was made at the start of the meeting. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 6 September 2006 Page 12 of 23 4. DRC No. 4087-06 - ST. NORBERT' S FAMILY & YOUTH CENTER A request to create a new 14,390 square foot family and youth center by converting an existing parish hall to a gymnasium multi-purpose room and by constructing a 7,280 square foot two-story addition. 300 East Taft Avenue Staff Contact: Anne Fox, (714) 744-7229, afox cr,cit, o~ge.org DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission A project overview consistent with the Staff Report was provided by Contract Staff Planner Anne Fox. No public comment was provided on this item. Committee Member Wheeler provided a suggestion that the recessed, vertical element resembling the branches of a tree be thickened. The applicant responded they intentionally made it thin to separate it from the building and have it appear more sculpture-like. Based on this feedback Committee Member Wheeler withdrew the suggestion. Committee Member Cathcart indicated the planting plan shows the main trees having 20' canopies; however, he believed the plan specified the incorrect variety as the Cassia artemisioides will only grow 5' tall; instead, the plan should call out Cassia leptophylla. In addition, the rose carpet doesn't show on-center planting so he recommended they will they be 1 gal. plants spaced 3' apart. Also, Committee Member Cathcart requested their landscape architect take a look at the ground cover suggested as it requires a moist, damp soil whereas the trees and shrubs require awell-drained soil (they have opposing hydro zones). Basically they should either use a different tree with a 20' canopy or use another ground cover that is more drought tolerant. Furthermore, the Community Services note needs to be added to the irrigation plan. Committee Member Wheeler indicated he is supportive of the variance to allow a 10' setback versus 20'. Committee Members Woollett and Carthcart agreed. Committee Member Cathcart made a motion to recommend DRC No. 4087-06 for approval to the Planning Commission with the recommendations that: 1) The variance is upheld for the setback. 2) The plant material shown on the landscape plan is modified so that either the tree selection or the ground cover selection is changed so they match hydro zones. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 6 September 2006 Page 13 of 23 SECOND: Joe Woollett AYES:Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES:None ABSTAIN:None ABSENT:None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 6 September 2006 Page 14 of 23 5. DRC No. 4115-06 - LINDEMANN RESIDENCE A request to remodel an existing 1,884 square foot single-family residence by constructing a 612 square foot addition; demolishing an existing garage and constructing a new garage in its place; and by constructing a new detached 536 square foot accessory second housing unit. 468 North Handy Street Staff Contact: Anne Fox, (714) 744-7229, afox(a,cityoforange.org DRC Action: Initial Review and Comment A project overview consistent with the Staff Report was provided by Contract Staff Planner Anne Fox. The project architect, Mr. Martinez, asked to address the three items Staff had expressed concern about; specifically: 1) the setback discrepancy. The applicant stated this has been resolved. 2) the roof pitch/direction of the ridge. The applicant stated their client wanted some drama and space is what dictated the pitch to go in the direction specified. They looked at the other homes in the neighborhood and wanted to update theirs slightly while still meeting Title 24 requirements. They did all that and while they might have pushed the envelope a little they didn't think it was really out of line. They are willing to address the appearance of the doors on Sheet 3 and tone it down to give a little lower scale if that is required. 3) the direction of the ridge. The applicant stated the garage next door has the ridge going in the same direction (pictures were offered). Furthermore, they moved the garage to make it meet code (20'x20'), it is now setback, and the entry and main house are higher which minimizes the massing. In conclusion, they believe they fit reasonably within the streetscape, they like the curb appeal and think they are contributing something positive to the neighborhood. Ms, Fox clarified it was not the orientation of the ridge causing concern; it was the roof pitch Staff was concerned about. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 6 September 2006 Page 15 of 23 Public comment was provided as follows: Jeff Dymaian, address on file, stated he was one of the neighbors and what they are trying to do is not abnormal for the neighborhood at all. It all fits in well structurally. He pointed out there are six-to-eight homes close by that look like what is being proposed. Committee Member Woollett stated he really liked the elevations and he thought the way the entrance was handled was aesthetically pleasing. He didn't have any problem with the direction and asked if they tried a 3 in 12 instead of 4 in 12. The applicant responded affirmatively; however, the client didn't approve as she thought it appeared she was investing in an old house. Ms. Fox interjected that the 3 in 12 could help scale the entire project down and that was a discussion Staff has already had with Mr. Martinez. Committee Member Wheeler had the same comment regarding 3 and 12 because in his opinion that would seem more compatible with other houses. He also asked if they could pick up some of the other details that seemed common on the street i.e. the 2x6 window frames. The applicant responded all the windows will now be wide vinyl framed/stucco framed. Committee Member Wheeler stated that would make them different from the majority of the houses in the neighborhood. The applicant responded that the majority of the houses don't even have Title 24 compliant windows. Committee Member Wheeler stated the same wood frames around them would pay homage to the other houses in the neighborhood. Also replacing the gable end vents with some lattice treatment would make it appear to be more adaptive versus different. The applicant stated he would look at that possibility. Committee Member Wheeler reiterated the need to be more sympathetic to the window frames and experiment with different vent ideas. He concluded by stating the more they could say "I'm trying to be compatible." The applicant responded he thought that what was being asked was not unreasonable and they could probably work with it. Chair Califf stated they only have one window that is fairly visible so if they treated that one window in the manner suggested it may be the only one they would need to do. Committee Member Wheeler pointed out the same treatment should be included on the garage door. Committee Member Woollett stated if they followed through with that type of detail he would be more inclined to go along with the 4 in 12. Committee Member DeWees stated he had two questions: 1) Was the front door intentionally offset? The applicant responded, "No, it will be even." 2) The storage area (which he pointed out really wasn't any of his business) blocks the view, was that intentional? City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 6 September 2006 Page 16 of 23 The applicant responded affirmatively and explained otherwise they felt it created a bowling alley look. The architect asked if the changes could be reviewed by Staff to eliminate another need to meet with the DRC. Committee Member Wheeler asked if they were sure what was being requested on the window trim. The applicant described how they understood it and the discussion ensued as to methodology. The three areas where it is applicable were: the front window, the garage door and elsewhere to be consistent i.e. the guesthouse. The applicant responded they would specify the detail in all places. Committee Member Woollett asked Ms. Fox if Staff review was acceptable to her and she responded if the Committee feels comfortable with a Staff review of walk-in plans, she understands what the Committee wants. Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve DRC No. 4115-06 with the following conditions: 1) The window trim be changed to be similar to the approximately 2x6 outstanding (raised) trim found in the neighborhood. The same treatment should be applied to the garage door. 2) The applicant study use of louvered vents for the gabled vents similar to the louvered vents found in the neighborhood. 3) The revised plans are submitted to Staff for final approval. SECOND: Donnie DeWees AYES:Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES:None ABSTAIN:None ABSENT:None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 6 September 2006 Page 17 of 23 6. DRC No. 4066-06 -IMPERIAL STATIONS SIGNAGE A request to install new signage for a Subway shop in an existing Shell Gas Station & Food Mart. 1234 North Main Street Staff Contact: Sonal Thakur, 714-744-7239, sthakur@cityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination A motion to approve this item by consent with the Staff recommendations was made at the start of the meeting. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 6 September 2006 Page 18 of 23 7. DRC No. 4118-06 - SCHMIDT RESIDENCE A request to convert a barn into a 3-car garage with accessory unit & storage area on second floor. 1655 West Hunters Way Staff Contact: Sonal Thakur, 714-744-7239, sthakur@cityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination A motion to approve this item by consent with the Staff recommendations was made at the start of the meeting. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 6 September 2006 Page 19 of 23 8. DRC No. 4122-06 - DEMORATZ ROOM ADDITION A request to construct a first floor living room addition and second floor master bedroom addition. 1139 West Sycamore Avenue Staff Contact: Sonal Thakur, 714-744-7239, sthakur cr,cityoforange.org DRC Action: Initial Review and Comment A project overview consistent with the Staff Report was provided by Assistant Planner Sonal Thakur. The applicant stated: The overall design character needs to be updated. It is a very old `50's style home and they are trying to be a pioneer of updating the project. They are hopeful the neighborhood will be encouraged to follow suit. The house is very small and additional space is needed. They tried to address the Staff concern of the project appearing overwhelming by softening it with the addition of a planter on the second floor balcony. The homeowner added: He moved into the home approximately six years ago. At the time he moved in the street was pretty dull. He has been told they started the fire on the street as now you will see changes occurring --- six or seven families have painted, planted, etc. He has done extensive landscaping. He plans to stay there for an extended period of time and he needs the additional space as he anticipates his mother moving in. The living room will be a great room. The dining room will have a table that seats twenty which is the typical size of the gatherings they host 2-3 times each month. He doesn't have an issue with changing windows or anything with the facade. There is no attic and there are break windows on the ends which could be put on the second floor. Committee Member DeWees stated he had a number of concerns: 1) They had one element from every conceivable style (specific examples were pinpointed) and there was nothing carried over from the existing fabric. The applicant responded they had no problem making modifications. 2) The ridge design results in a huge cricket and it was suggested by Committee Member DeWees that the second addition be in another area. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 6 September 2006 Page 20 of 23 The applicant responded they didn't have the budget to go up in another area for a number of reasons. 3) The Infill Guidelines discuss mass and existing fabric yet none of the pictures provided show anything that is compatible to the proposed mass along the whole street. 4) He understood the desire to have a larger living room; however, the box design doesn't appropriately solve anything and his opinion is the whole thing could be done much better. The massing is completely wrong. 5) The entry way is inherently false. The door swings in such a manner that you're pushed up against the step. The applicant responded they were very interested in taking recommendations to get the project approved as they want to stay in the City of Orange. Committee Member Wheeler stated he agreed totally with the comments on the massing; as it appears they've taken a nice L-shaped, one story home and placed a foreign element in the corner of it. He thought they could do a lot with the exterior to make it more compatible but to have the huge mass destroys the rest of the home; the massive crickets are incorrect and it doesn't match anything else on the street. Committee Member Wheeler concluded by stating that as proposed it would be totally against the Infill Guidelines and he could never support it. Committee Member Woollett asked if they considered putting the second story element to the back of the property. The applicant responded it would cost an additional $100,000.00 and that wasn't acceptable. When the Committee queried why it would cost more, the applicant responded "they would have to redo the entire house in terms of retrofitting to support it." The discussion ensued about retrofitting and ultimately concluded with the architect stating they have vaulted ceilings that would be compromised and they have a very low plate height. Committee Member Wheeler asked if they looked at the possibility of moving back into the rear yard, raising the plate (the specific area was pinpointed on the plans) and underpinning the foundation (again the specific area was pinpointed on the plans). The discussion evolved about the feasibility of a two story home being introduced into the neighborhood. The applicant was told it could be done; however, the proposed changes were essential to ensure compliance with the Infill Guidelines. The applicant asked if they had the support of the entire neighborhood if that would change anything. The applicant was told that was basically irrelevant. Committee Member Wheeler stated they have the option of having the project continued so they could make changes and come back or the Committee could deny the project if the applicant wanted to retain the original proposal and appeal it to the Planning Commission. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 6 September 2006 Page 21 of 23 Chair Califf told the applicant it really was up to them having already received some general direction as to what they could do to get an approvable design in front of the Committee; alternately, they could maintain the plans as proposed (which would cause denial on the part of the DRC) and they could appeal to the Planning Commission. Committee Member Cathcart stated that in the event the project was denied and the applicant chose to go forward to the Planning Commission, he wanted to comment that the upstairs planter situated outside the master suite required a lot of sensitive design detail to address waterproofing, draining, and irrigating. The dilemmas cited were the plant material hanging over the front would die and the drainage would run on the side of the house and become unsightly. Chair Califf asked the applicant how they wanted to proceed and told them if they didn't know at that time they could continue it. The fees for appeal were discussed. Committee Member Woollett stated that although decking materials are better than they used to be, he wanted to provide a word of caution to the applicant that there are risks associated with leakage over an extended period of time. He added he wouldn't deny it for this reason; he just wanted them to know based on his experience he is very careful about putting a deck over a living area. Committee Member Woollett suggested the applicant also check the floor framing (L80). The applicant asked if they could have some time to make a decision. Chair Califf asked Staff if the project was continued and the applicant decides they don't want to redesign it, instead they want to go forward with the original proposal to the Planning Commission; without the denial of the project by the DRC, would that affect the appeal? Ms. Thakur responded she wasn't sure but her thought was it wouldn't affect it and it could still go to the Planning Commission. Chair Califf made a motion to continue DRC No. 4122-06 as the DRC would not approve the project as presented and their action was to send it back with the applicant for redesign incorporating the comments and input of the Committee. SECOND: Bill Cathcart AYES:Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES:None ABSTAIN:None ABSENT:None MOTION CARRIED. The applicant asked if the funds provided to the City thus far were refundable if the project were to be denied. Chair Califf responded that the funds were a deposit that are debited for the hours Staff bills for project review and to the extent there are funds still available, they will be carried over and debited for the Staff time required to prepare the report for the Planning Commission. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 6 September 2006 Page 22 of 23 The applicant stated if he had his way he would move to another City that was friendlier. Committee Member Woollett suggested they read the guidelines and stated the Committee is to enforce the guidelines. Ms. Thakur offered another set of the Guidelines. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 6 September 2006 Page 23 of 23 REVIEW OF MINUTES: AUGUST 16, 2006 Committee Member Woollett made a motion to approve the minutes of the August 16, 2006 meeting with amendments as noted. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES:Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES:None ABSTAIN:None ABSENT:None MOTION CARRIED. A motion was made by Chair Califf to adjourn until the next scheduled session. SECOND: Donnie DeWees AYES:Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES:None ABSTAIN:None ABSENT:None MOTION CARRIED.