Loading...
2011-01-05 DRC Final Minutes CITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES - FINAL January 5, 2011 Committee Members Present: Adrienne Gladson Tim McCormack Craig Wheeler Joe Woollett Committee Members Absent: Bill Cathcart Staff in Attendance: Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary Administrative Session — 5:00 P.M. Vice Chair Gladson opened the Administrative Session at 5:13 p.m. Planning Manger, Leslie Aranda Roseberry, stated there were no changes to the Agenda and Chair Cathcart was absent as he was conflicted out on the only item on the evening's Agenda. Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to adjourn the Administrative Session of the Design Review Committee Meeting. SECOND: Tim McCormack AYES: Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Bill Cathcart MOTION CARRIED. Administrative Session adjourned at 5:15 p.m. Regular Session - 5:30 P.M. ROLL CALL: Chair Cathcart was absent PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Opportunity for members of the public to address the Design Review Committee on matters not listed on the Agenda. There was none. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 5, 2011 Page 2 of 11 CONSENT ITEMS: (1) APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None 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 City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 5, 2011 Page 3 of 11 AGENDA ITEMS: Continued Items: None New Agenda Items: (2) DRC No. 4504 -10, GPA No. 2010 -0002, ZC No. 1257 -10, CUP No. 2803 -10, MJSP No. 0639 -10, TPM 0027 -10, and MND No. 1824 -10 — SERRANO WOODS • A proposal to construct 63 affordable rental apartments and associated site improvements. The proposal includes a CUP to allow a church to remain on a portion of the site. • 1820 E. Meats Avenue • Staff Contact: Chad Ortlieb, 714 - 744 -7237, cortliebAcityoforange.org • DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council Senior Planner, Chad Ortlieb, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Todd Cottle, address on file, stated he and his associates were available for questions. Public Comment None. Vice Chair Gladson opened the item to the Committee for discussion. Committee Member Wheeler stated on sheet A1.3 he was curious if it would be possible, and he knew it was a different floor plan, but if it would be possible to stack the windows as the windows were the only ones not aligned and they had looked a bit odd. They were the windows adjacent to the community room. He had a concern that they had not matched the drawings. Applicant, Barry Adnams, address on file, stated the request had been for the outlooker details. Committee Member Wheeler stated it was a nice picture, but it had not given any information about what they were doing, such as sizes and materials. The outlooker to him was a little odd as he had not known of a historical precedent for a double outlooker. Typically an outlooker was a beam that would support the barge board, and why would they need a second one? If there was a second one, and they both appeared at the same height, one would need to be at a different height to support the barge board without notching into it. Ninety -nine percent of people would not have an issue with it; however, it made him a bit uncomfortable. He wanted more information on that detail. A minor thing, he pointed to a line on the drawings that appeared to reflect a change in plane and stated that had not actually occurred and the two planes were the same. Mr. Adnams stated there was an expansion joint there. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 5, 2011 Page 4 of 11 Committee Member Wheeler stated they might want to study that area and decide how the molding form would be terminated. There was a reference to a shed roof form, but it appeared on the exterior elevations they were drawn as hips and he assumed it was an error. Mr. Adnams stated that was an error. Committee Member Wheeler stated there was a big window and a little window and they appeared to be using the same size shutter. On the 3 rd floor, he assumed that the "dashed- line" area indicated the stone veneer; however, he had not thought that they were using stone on the third story. Mr. Adnams stated no, just on the 2 nd story. Committee Member Wheeler stated the "dashed- line" for the indication of stone veneer needed some work relative to the elevations and why there was stone indicated for some areas and not on others. There was a situation that was a pet peeve of his. There were two planes that were the same with heavy stone above and having stone sitting over a lighter material should be looked at. Mr. Adnams stated he had that same concern and he had not thought people would relate to it. The stone would come down to a point, as shown on the drawings, and go to the inside corner, but there was not an opportunity to have it stop on the other plane. He had the same concern. Committee Member Wheeler suggested putting the heavy stone at the bottom and not having it hang in the air. Mr. Adnams stated people would have a tendency not to see the bottom portion as it would be heavily landscaped and not relate to that detail below the roof. Committee Member Wheeler stated he understood his argument as it would not be seen below the roof. On the carport there was a note that stated provide sheathing to conceal the roof fastenings and he suggested the thickness of the sheathing or two layers of sheathing be noted. He suggested that the Ficus trees remain along a stretch of property he pointed out on the plans. He stated the Staff report had indicated that the shading would remain about the same, due to the location of the buildings. Landscape Architect, Bob Luther, address on file, stated with construction of a new wall and footing, landscape, curb, and pylons to hold up the carport, they would have to cut into the root of the trees so significantly that they had felt the impact to the trees would cause permanent damage. They could die and fall a few years after the construction and they would rather excavate the tree roots out, compact the soil and plant fast - growing columnar trees there that would get up over the wall in a short time. Committee Member McCormack stated he had a question regarding the shade study and obviously the trees provided shading and everything the applicant stated was correct, except for the columnar trees. In cutting into the root base of the existing trees it could cause an issue. He asked if the tree removal would affect the shade report negatively? City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 5, 2011 Page 5 of 11 Vice Chair Gladson stated in viewing it from an environmental perspective, loss of a tree which was not on a protected list would not have any particular hierarchy of protection and environmentally it would be noted that trees would be removed. The discussion would be if with the tree removal would it be a significant loss if the trees were gone? The answer would be no, if the mitigation was replacement. The trade -off was the replacement of the trees and the judgment would be how fast would the new trees grow? Planning Manager, Leslie Aranda Roseberry, stated for the purposes of the shade and shadow study they would look at it from a baseline and what would occur once the proposed project was built and the trees were gone. Would there be significantly more shade and shadow from the baseline used is the question. Committee Member Wheeler stated the trees, for him, were for privacy as well as shade. He would argue that the times chosen for the shade study, with the summer /winter solstice and being 3:00 in the afternoon had not represented the time of day and part of the year that there would be the greatest heat load on the residences to the east. Committee Member McCormack stated in terms of having the Ficus tree resource and in a choice of building a standard block wall, there were other fence choices that might have pylon footings that would not create a long linear line of continuous footing and less root damage. If it was important to retain the trees it might be beneficial to explore different fence types that had a different footing system and it could also be less expensive. Vice Chair Gladson stated she had not seen the tree removal as an environmental issue; she saw it as more of a good neighbor thing and she would suggest retention of the trees for that value. Mr. Cottle stated his experience with Ficus trees were that they had instances where the trees had to be removed based on the root damage in relationship to slabs, water lines, and other underground features. In the proposed situation where they would have a curb face that would be poured in and additional hard scape with the proximity to a carport they were also looking at the long term evasiveness of the trees. They wanted to create a property that would not incur maintenance or repair costs that could have been avoided. They would be the owner for the long term and it was something they looked at. They looked at plumbing and electrical fixtures that would not need to be repaired or replaced in the near future. There was a risk of damage to the property from the trees over time. Committee Member McCormack stated he understood the issue and the applicant's concerns. There would be new screen trees planted and it was important that they chose the right tree. There was a section added that was listed as screening trees and there were a number of different ways to interpret screening. In his definition the screen trees were generally a tree that was columnar that would be placed close together to create a screen. In reading through the suggested tree list there was a tree that was not columnar and the Podocarpus gracilar once again had a rounded head and could be formed and grown in a columnar shape. The trees appeared to be spaced 15' to 18' apart and the third tree listed was Primus caroliniana `Bright n Tight' - Compact Carolina Cherry and that tree could be used in combination with the other trees; that plant was more of a shrub and planted in closer proximity. It could get high enough. The Prunus City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 5, 2011 Page 6 of 11 caroliniana regular tree would be a screen tree. He had seen situations that used both trees and they would create a screen and he suggested that method be used. He also suggested planting a tree that had moderate growth. In the Staff Report it was noted that the trees should be larger in nature, but there was not a size specified. When he saw larger, minimum 36" box, he considered that a larger tree and the 24" box spec on the first two trees would be a 3' wide x 9' tall and with a spacing of 18' on center there would not be any initial screening for the next 10 years. He suggested the applicant re -think the landscape character and the landscape intent of the screening element with the thought that the Ficus trees would be removed. Mr. Cottle stated it would be decreasing the space between the tree plantings and possibly looking into using a larger box. Committee Member McCormack asked if the Ficus were currently causing damage? Mr. Luther stated currently there were all soft elements in that location and the damage would be noticeable when the hard elements were in place. Committee Member McCormack asked if there were any visible roots on the top or any damage on the ground plane? Mr. Luther stated the Ficus trees on the east were not being watered and had not had water for years. The neighbors were constantly asking that the trees be trimmed back as they grew up onto the roofs. He could not state what the current shape of the trees were. Committee Member Wheeler asked if the applicants had any conversations with the neighbors in regard to the trees coming down? Mr. Cottle stated they had not. Vice Chair Gladson asked what zoning designation they were using? Mr. Ortlieb stated they were rental properties. Vice Chair Gladson stated if they were single - family residential there would be neighbors that would be upset with the tree removal; that had not meant that they should not further explore the options regarding the tree removal before they went to the Planning Commission. Committee Member Woollett stated he believed what the property owner had stated about the trees was valid and he was in the owner's camp on the discussion. The trees could become a problem with the paving and other additions and it would be a good time to put in a proper tree for the long term. If the Committee were to take an action on the proposal he suggested Committee Member McCormack call for a specific action or a suggestion for tree spacing and planting. Vice Chair Gladson stated Staff had suggested that the final landscape plan return to the DRC for their review. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 5, 2011 Page 7 of 11 Committee Member McCormack stated he would not want to dictate a specific tree to be used as it was the landscape architect's choice to use the tree he wanted. He could comment on what was presented and there was an issue in assuring that what was removed was replaced. Vice Chair Gladson stated they may want to specify a time frame, if replacement trees were the only option, that there be an expectation of where the trees should be in five years or ten years. The applicant could return with a species palette that would achieve that requirement. Committee Member McCormack stated Disneyland was an example, in that they used Eucalyptus and Ficus which were fast growing and the trees provided a quick back drop. A tree that would work that would not cause any root problems, that would not be extra thirsty and had moderate growth was Tristania conferta. There were other trees, but the Tristania would be one of the better tree choices, coupled with the Bright n Tights right up against the wall would be a good choice. He suggested the Tristania in 36" box, 18' on center and to use the Bright n Tight against the wall and that would grow into a nice screen. Committee Member Woollett stated he was satisfied that it would return to the DRC with the comments made. Mr. Luther stated the 24" box would grow quicker and provide screening in a shorter amount of time. The 24" would outpace the 36" box and provide better screening over time. Committee Member McCormack stated that was normally a common truth, but the reason he suggested 36" was that the immediate response to the Ficus tree removal of a 24" Tristania conferta would be 2 ' / 2 " by 8' tall and at 18' on center it would not make an impact. They might want to check with the neighbors. Mr. Luther asked what were they wanting to screen? A visual element would be removed, but as far as screening there would not be a building there and the shade would not be an issue. There was a carport that would be screened with another plant and his question was what were they attempting to screen? Committee Member McCormack stated he felt it was the shade issue and the west exposure which would be ominous on a summer day. The visual impact would be there and he agreed if they planted 15- gallon it would grow faster than 36 ", but the 15- gallon would be 6" tall by 1' wide and 36" would be 3' to 4' wide with 16' tall; he suggested they not plant anything less than a 24" box. Mr. Cottle stated they would look into the placement of the trees and take in the suggestions and come back with a plan. Committee Member McCormack stated the comments were well taken, a young plant would grow quicker than an older one and they could play with that and not use less than a 24" box. He had made a comment previously regarding drainage that the entire area appeared to be drained through a 4" pipe. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 5, 2011 Page 8 of 11 Applicant, John Dikes, address on file, stated there would be a 24" x 3" or 4" slot culvert with the sidewalk above which would take in the drainage. The slope was not steep at all and the drainage would cross pervious paving. The volume would not be huge. Committee Member McCormack stated he had a few things on the Conditions of Approval; on Condition No. 1, applicant would further evaluate the Italian Cypress. He asked what the basis for their evaluation would be from and what criteria would be used? Would it be longevity or form? Mr. Luther stated the first thing they would need to evaluate was where the wall would sit in relationship to the trees. Any trees that had not appeared to be healthy or at risk for falling over would be removed and they would retain as many as they could. Any tree removed would be replaced by a new tree and they would want to keep as many as they could and they would not want to cut all of them out and their goal was to save as many as possible. Committee Member McCormack stated on the root barrier form would they be using a linear form? Mr. Luther stated they would be using a linear panel -style barrier. Vice Chair Gladson stated it appeared that the Ficus trees would need to go, but one of the options would be for the applicant to work with the rear yard areas of the adjacent property and what could be done off site. The tree had to be cut down, but then they could work on a landscape plan for the backyard of the apartment building and augment the situation of the shade reduction and sun increase; which could assist with the loss and it could be a thought for exploration. Committee Member Wheeler stated he was concerned with the sun and also with the privacy. The disappearance of those trees could almost be traumatic. He spoke from experience. Mr. Cottle stated what it would ultimately come down to would be the property owner's decision. Committee Member McCormack stated he had noted that his suggestion regarding the shade area ground cover palette had been noted on the plans and his question was if there was only a shade ground cover palette it inferred that shade areas were the only areas with ground cover. He suggested adding a shrub to go with that and he noticed that some of the shrubs that were listed could work. On Condition No. 12 regarding a tree removal permit, he suggested that the condition read a removal permit shall be required after Design Review Committee review and approval of the landscape plan. On Condition No. 55 it stated the same information as No. 51. On Condition No. 59, he suggested changing the verbiage to note the tree sizes at a minimum of 24" and a maximum of 36 ". Those were all the comments he had and he liked the position of the street tree on Park Avenue. Committee Member Wheeler asked if the thickness of the free - standing walls had been noted anywhere? City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 5, 2011 Page 9 of 11 Mr. Adnams stated that the thickness of the free - standing walls was noted on sheet 4.0 or 5.0; he reviewed the plans for the information. It was sheet 5.0 with a minimum 8" which applied to all buildings. Committee Member Wheeler asked Mr. Ortlieb if there should be any conditions added to reflect the mitigation measures in the Negative Declaration? Vice Chair Gladson stated she believed Condition Nos. 61 through 73 took care of that. Committee Member Wheeler asked the Committee Members if there was any consensus that upon the applicant's return with the landscape plans that the final elevation plans be provided which showed details for the window trim, outlookers, and stone placement? The Committee Members agreed. Committee Member Woollett stated they had spoken of some consistencies and if the item was not coming back the consistencies should be called out very specifically. That was to protect the City as well as the applicant. He was concerned with the false windows. Mr. Adnams stated they had taken all of those away and had added shutters; the false windows had gone away. Committee Member Woollett stated they were in the age of eclecticism and it was somewhat rampant and it was taking some adjusting to that as he looked for more stylistic consistency. One of the best examples of contemporary architecture was the Getty Museum and yet to anyone with a discerning eye the wonderful stone on that museum was obviously fake, but subtly fake and there was the fine line of randomly eclectic and putting things in just to add interest to the building. Those details sometimes in the future could look really junky; that was his concern and he appreciated the architect's perspective. He understood that some elements needed to be added to please people's sensitivities, but he was concerned with the double outlooker and some of the other things that had been pointed out. He would want to see some of those elements when the item returned. Committee Member Wheeler suggested the applicant review the double outlookers and see what else they could come up with and something with more substance might work. He stated they had some examples of outlookers that had been approved by the DRC that they would have liked to not have approved, once they had seen them built. Vice Chair Gladson stated she was hearing that the Committee would generally. support the concept, what had been presented and to support the project; but they wanted another pass at reviewing some of the details and the landscape. She had not wanted the project held up and she wanted to pass on the recommendation to the Planning Commission that their feelings on the project were positive. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 5, 2011 Page 10 of 11 Committee Member Woollett made a motion to recommend approval to the Planning Commission of DRC No. 4504 -10, GPA No. 2010 -0002, ZC No. 1257 -10, CUP No. 2803 -10, MJSP No. 0639 -10, TPM 0027 -10, and MND No. 1824 -10 — SERRANO WOODS, subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report and with the following additional conditions: 1. The final landscape plan shall return to the Design Review Committee for review. 2. The final elevations shall return to the Design Review Committee for review. 3. Condition No. 12 to be revised to read: The tree removal permit shall be obtained after the approval by the Design Review Committee of the landscape and irrigation plans. 4. Condition No. 55 to be omitted as it was a duplicate of Condition No. 51. 5. Condition No. 59, add the tree size dimensions of minimum 24" box and maximum 36" box. 6. The elevation plan shall include the complex floor plans for comparison purposes. SECOND: Adrienne Gladson AYES: Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Bill Cathcart MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 5, 2011 Page 11 of 11 ADJOURNMENT: Committee Member McCormack made a motion to adjourn to the next regular scheduled Design Review Committee Meeting on Wednesday, January 19, 2011. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Bill Cathcart MOTION CARRIED. Meeting adjourned at 6:28 p.m.