Loading...
2015-07-01 DRC Final MinutesCITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES —FINAL Committee Members Present= Tim McCormack -Chair Carol Fox —Vice Chair Robert Imboden Anne McDermott Craig Wheeler Stuff in Attendance: Jeruiifer Le, Acting Principal Planner Anne Fox, Contract Planner Sharon Penttila, Recording Secretary Administrative Session — 5:00 Chair McCormack opened the Administrative Session at Sc13 p.m. July 1, 2075 Chair McCormack inquired if there was any Policy or Procedural information. Jexttiifer Le, Acting Principal Planner, had three announcements. 1. The previously named Staff Review Committee SRC) is now called the SMART Team (Streamlined Multidisciplinary Accelerated Review Team. 2. Jef£ Borchardt, Assistant Planner, left the City of Orange this week to pursue a career in Reno. The Department is looking at some staffing options. 3. There will be a full agenda at the next DRC meeting on July 15` with five items including Marywood Residential Development, Town 8c Country Residential project, and the Metrolink Parking Structure. Committee Member Fox made a motion to close the Administrative Session of the Design Review Committee meeting. SECOND. Craig Wheeler AYES= Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Anne McDermott, and Craig Wheeler NOES: None ABSENT= None MOTION CARRIED_ Administrative Session adjourned at 5 : t 9 p. m. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for July 1, 2015 Page 2 of 9 Regular Session — 5:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: All Committee Members were present. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Opportunity for members of the public to address the Design Review Committee on matters not listed on the Agenda. There were no speakers. CONSENT ITEMS (1) APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for July 1, 2015 Page 3 of 9 AGENDA ITEMS Continued Item: (2) DRC No. 4741 -14 - THE LAN LE DUPLEX • A proposal to demolish an existing single family residence in order to construct a duplex development consisting of two detached dwelling units on an existing parcel. • 4520 East Washington Avenue • Staff Contact: Anne Fox, 714 - 744 -7236, afoxkcityoforan e.org • DRC Action: Final Determination Anne Fox, Contract Planner, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. She explained the project had been previously heard by the DRC in January and it now had a new architect. Staff worked with the new architect to resolve some of the previous concerns and staff was recommending approval. Vincent Tran, architect, stated the current proposal was designed to minimize cost and make it as simple as possible. Public Comments: Chair McCormack opened the item to the Public for comments. There were none. Chair McCormack opened the item to the Committee for discussion. The DRC commented on the following: • The new design is closer to the direction the DRC gave at the previous meeting. • Concerned with the number of risers on the interior stairs on both plans which may change the exterior elevations. • Driveway concerns and questions: • Questioned the 11' width of the driveway shown on the site plan. Staff stated a 12' wide driveway is not required for a R2 -6 zoned property. The driveway width complies with Code. • Concern with the blindness of the narrow driveway with the house next to it and the door opening out from the garage. • Concrete along the driveway planned up to the residence looked harsh. The DRC suggested using gravel and softening the building with some landscaping along the foundation. • Suggested simplifying the roof by getting rid of the cricket and replacing it with a more conventional hip roof. • Questioned the wrapping of the stone veneer on Plan A & B and if it continues on all the elevations. • Suggested using a shed roof over the entry instead of the proposed gable with a cricket. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for July 1, 2015 Page 4 of 9 • Concerned the design does not seem to be complementary to the neighborhood. There is too much busyness on the front elevations and the sides are plain. Suggested carrying the theme on all elevations or simplifying the design. • Windows concerns and questions: o Concerned that the upper and lower windows were not organized. Concerned with the windows facing south. o Questioned the location of the window above the stairs and suggested using a different type of window. o Suggested all the windows to have the same treatment around the entire house. o Concern with the windows not stacking. Suggested windows need to be aligned which is better achieved on Plan B. o Concern with the high windows on the front fagade and the stairwell. oProblem with the inconsistent treatment of the windows since some have muntins and others don't. Landscaping plan concerns and questions: •Questioned the type of turf being used. • Suggested not using the chrysanthemum since it is an annual plant. • Suggested using a medium size tree such as a purple leaf plum which would help shade the concrete. •All the plants should have the same water needs and artificial grass could be used. oNot understanding the concept of all the dirt. Suggested using gravel, mulch, or DG. • Landscape element needs to be more defined. • Color plan doesn't match the site plan and it needs to come back to the DRC. Concerned with the stairs on Plan B and suggested eliminating the hall closet if necessary. Liked staff's idea that the two buildings match more. Plan B is a better approach which has a better organization of the fagade. Concern with the color choices on the buildings and suggested white was not an appropriate color choice for the foam trim and vinyl windows considering the rest of the color palette and should be reconsidered. An alternative suggestion was to change the color palette to go with the white trim /windows. Committee Member Wheeler summarized the DRC's feedback as follows: 1. Stairs need to be checked 2. Confirmed with staff that the driveway width complies with Code 3. Suggest redesigning the roof 4. Drawings should show the fascia being used all the way around 5. Stone veneer should wrap the corners and be used more alongside the drive 6. Roof at the entry should be a shed roof 7. Suggest eliminating the man door on the Plan A garage 8. Landscape should hold the pavement back from the building wherever possible to create a foundation planting strip 9. Consider eliminating the front window on the stairwell on both plans. 10. Rear elevation on Plan A needs better organization and window alignment 11. Chrysanthemum is an annual and should be avoided 12. All plants should have the same water usage 13. Artificial turf could be used City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for July 1, 2015 Page 5 of 9 14. Suggest adding a moderately larger tree on the northwest corner of Plan B 15. Suggested using gravel, mulch or DG perhaps 3" deep instead of dirt 16. Use landscape strip against the fence where the pavement comes up to the fence 17. Landscape plans needs to be designed further 18. Issues with the finishes of the buildings 19. Wrap the same window treatment all around the buildings to a larger extent 20. Concern with window alignment 21. Window muntins be eliminated or used more cohesively 22. Two buildings should be painted different colors or have the same color with the buildings differentiated by form 23. The landscape plan needs to come back for further review 24. Suggested adding shed roofs at the rear especially on Plan A to give more animation to the wall and provide shade for the windows 25. Both plans need to be more similar in elevations, more like Plan B Committee Member Fox made a motion to continue DRC No. 4741 -14, The Lan Le Duplex, to a date uncertain. SECOND: Robert Imboden AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Anne McDermott, and Craig Wheeler NOES: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for July 1, 2015 Page 6 of 9 New Agenda Item: (3) DRC No. 4749 -14 — ORANGE -OLIVE RESIDENTIAL (MBK HOMES) • A proposal to develop a 2.33 -acre site used for recreational vehicle storage with 25 two -story detached residential units. • 2025 Orange -Olive Road • Staff Contact: Jennifer Le, 714- 744 -7238 • DRC Action: Preliminary Review Jennifer Le, Acting Principal Planner, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. She stated the applicant originally submitted an application in 2014 for 35 units and a 3 -story product, but redesigned the project in response to staff and community comments. The applicant is requesting a Zone Change to R3 to align with the General Plan designation. They are also proposing a Specific Plan to establish site specific development standards along with a Major Site Plan Review, Design Review and Tentative Tract Map for condominium purposes. Staff is asking the DRC for specific comments on the architecture and landscaping design. The applicants who were present for the project were Sunti Kumjim, MBK Homes; Alan Scales, KTGY; Kye Evans, MBK Homes; and Peter A. Duarte, landscape architect. Mr. Kumjim stated the first proposal had a higher density with a 3 -story product. They listened to the feedback they had received and revised the proposed project. Mr. Duarte explained from a landscape standpoint, that the overall picture of the project was to plan for low water use and maintenance. Mr. Scales indicated from an architectural and life style standpoint, they were providing 2 -story homes for a more conventional space to live with a private rear yard. He described the design of the project including the guest parking, home entry, the spine road and the inspiration from Irving Gill. Public Comments Chair McCormack opened the item to the Public for comments. Dan Granspensperger, address on file, indicated his main concern was the impact of parking from this project on surrounding residential streets. He was glad the project no longer included 3 -story homes. Chair McCormack opened the item to the Committee for discussion. The DRC commented on the following: • Suggested addressing the public's concern regarding parking. Ms. Le stated the parking issue was not within the purview of the DRC. She said the Planning Commission could address this issue. • Questioned what the parking requirement was for this project. Ms. Le stated for the R3 zoning district it was 2.6 per unit and this proposal included 2.8 parking spaces per unit. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for July 1, 2015 Page 7 of 9 • Commented that from a design standpoint this is one of the best guest parking space layouts that the DRC has seen. • Confirmed with staff that there is a Zone Change connected to the project which brings the zoning in alignment with the General Plan designation. • Concerned with trash pickup and trash enclosures. Ms. Le has discussed this issue with the SMART Team. Trash enclosures are not proposed. The site plan shows individual trash cart locations. The details of trash pickup will be addressed in the CC &Rs for the project. • Questioned whether the fencing layout takes into account the hammerhead locations and the need to roll out trash cans from the yard area. • Questioned the space between the garages. • Commended the use of drought tolerant plants but was concerned that common areas between units might eventually become concrete in the future. Mr. Kumjim stated common area landscaping would be maintained by the HOA. • Commended the overall project and excited by the concept. • 2 Story window concerns: • Concerned with the windows that will be facing toward the rear yards of the residential tract. Happy to see on Plan 1 that there are few windows on the 2 story. • Concerned that Plan 3 has a number of windows on the 2 story. Mr. Scales stated the majority of the windows are in smaller laundry spaces, toilet rooms and showers. Plan 3 does have a master bedroom window and they could perhaps rotate the bed wall. • Suggested placing a tree to mitigate the issue of looking down in the neighbor's yard. • Also suggested solving the issue with architecture instead of landscaping. Mr. Scales suggested the possibility of relocating the bed wall, minimizing the size of the window and using obscure glass. • Liked the streetscape. • Suggested adding some additional animation on the windows facing Orange - Olive. • Happy with the three different elevations facing the front of the project but there appeared to be a lot of Plan 2's at the main entrance. • Questioned whether an elevation would be included for Plan 3A. • Questioned the site plan on Sheet Al.1 which showed the private open space extending into the front setback area. Ms. Le explained Code does not typically allow private open space within the setback areas but required setbacks can be tailored to the project in the proposed Specific Plan. • Questioned the location of Unit 2 in the northwest corner of the property which appears to be intruding into the front setback area. • Questioned the location on the site plan calling out a common area of 438 sf. • Questioned the callout of a flat stucco cap and where the pilasters occur. • Questioned the window location on the 2nd floor between Plan 1 & 2 buildings and Plan 1 & 1X buildings on plan A1.3. Mr. Scales stated they could make them a square window or use obscure glass. • Asked if there was anything special being done for sound proofing the walls and windows on the west side. Mr. Kumjin said that issue was being addressed. • Suggested animating the streetscape that faces Orange- Olive. • Liked the garages not being visible from the street. • Questioned the vinyl fence locations and the stucco gate entry. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for July 1, 2015 Page 8 of 9 • Suggested making the elevation styles more varied on the streetscape. • Had no problem with the street frontage and the setback as proposed. • Suggested the Applicant shouldn't skimp on the materials and embellish only where they need to. • Questioned if there were any issues with the Fire Department on laddering. Ms. Le stated the Fire Department will likely require tree heights to be limited on the private driveway entries for visibility. • Landscaping comments: • Concerned that the plants listed on the plans appeared chaotic and suggested not using every plant listed. • Suggested pulling back the stucco wall areas in the backyards by 2' to 3' to give the areas a sense of a garden element. • Liked the medium evergreen tree at the entry. • Thought the center spine needed a secondary player and felt the Agonis flexuosa (peppermint trees) would be a weakling. Suggested using the Tabebuia, the Chinese Lantern or the Tristania. • Questioned if the fruitless olive trees would be field grown. • Questioned the street lighting with the street trees and asked that it be coordinated. • Identified the need to consider the cable box and lines. • Suggested doing a study on the north facing plants which would be in the shade. It was noted that some of the aloe and agave species would grow in the shade. • Suggested using the Chinese Lantern tree and the Platanus acerifolia `Columbia' (London Plane Tree). Ms. Le stated the applicant would have a color /material board at the next meeting. She asked the DRC if there was any direction they would like to give the applicant on the architectural details or any direction on the materials on the various elevations. Committee Member Imboden felt it was important to call out the windows and materials on the plans. He stated there was a limited palette of material on the plans. The applicant would also need to come back with details on the vinyl windows. Ms. Le explained that staff was considering asking the applicant to add a decorative paving pattern in the motor court area to make it feel mo -•e like community areas and less like a parking place. The DRC suggested using a concrete that was sensitively scored and simple. They did not want to see pavers or stained or high contrast concrete. Ms. Le wanted feedback from the DRC regarding the screening for the transformer shown on L -1 of the plans. They agreed it needed screening. Ms. Le also asked the DRC for their feedback on the width of the sidewalks. There is a possible option of making the sidewalks 5' instead of 4'. The DRC felt a narrower street and a wider sidewalk would slow down the speed of the cars. Eric Jacobson, from the public, explained his home on Shaffer backs up to the #3 building and he voiced his concern with the windows which would look down on his yard. Agreed with the DRC suggestions to address the issue. For preliminary review only — no action is required. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for July 1, 2015 Page 9 of 9 ADJOURNMENT: Committee Member Fox made a motion to adjourn to the next regularly scheduled Design Review Committee meeting on July 15, 2015. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Anne McDermott, and Craig Wheeler NOES: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. Meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m.