Loading...
2016-06-01 DRC Final Minutes CITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES — FINAL June 1, 2016 Committee Members Present: Carol Fox - Chair Craig Wheeler — Vice Chair Robert Imboden Tim McCormack Anne McDermott Staff in Attendance: Jennifer Le, Principal Planner Robert Garcia, Senior Planner Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner Marissa Moshier, Associate Planner- Historic Preservation Anne Fox, Contract Planner Kelly Ribuffo, Associate Planner Sharon Penttila, Recording Secretary Administrative Session — 5:00 Chair Fox opened the Administrative Session at 5:10 p.m. Chair Fox inquired if there was any Policy or Procedural information. Robert Garcia, Senior Planner, indicated there was no Policy or Procedural information. Mr. Garcia let the Committee know that their binders now included a copy of the Infill Residential Design Guidelines, which had been repackaged differently making it more user - friendly. Ms. Moshier informed the Committee about the upcoming "Preservation Education Workshop Series for Local Governments" being held on August 5, 2016 at the City of Orange Main Library in the Library Community Room. Committee Members reviewed the Design Review Committee minutes for May 18, 2016. Vice Chair Wheeler indicated he would be recusing himself from Agenda Item #2, LCP Tracker, Inc. Sign. Vice Chair Wheeler made a motion to close the Administrative Session of the Design Review Committee meeting. SECOND: Robert Imboden AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Anne McDermott, and Craig Wheeler NOES: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. Administrative Session adjourned at 5:25 p.m. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for June 1, 2016 Page 2 of 16 Regular Session — 5:32 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: May 18, 2016 Vice Chair Wheeler made a motion to approve the minutes from the Design Review Committee meeting of May 18, 2016 as emended during the discussion at the Administrative Session. SECOND: Tim McCormack 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 June 1, 2016 Page 3 of 16 (2) DRC No. 4850 -16 LCP Tracker, Inc. Sign • A proposal to install a new illuminated channel letter sign on a non - contributing commercial building in the Plaza Historic District. • 117 E. Chapman Avenue • Staff Contact: Kelly Ribuffo, 714- 744 -7223, kribuffo @cityoforange.org • DRC Action: Final Determination Vice Chair Wheeler recused himself due to the proximity to his office and left the room. This item was pulled from the Consent agenda for Committee discussion. The Committee asked for clarification on the drawings regarding some of the screw patterns on the mortar joints; if the light portion of the lighthouse had a light bulb; and wanted the applicant to be aware of the sign code ordinance. Ms. Ribuffo clarified the screw locations in the mortar joints and confirmed there would be a light bulb in the lighthouse. Committee Member McCormack made a motion to approve DRC No. 4850 -16, LCP Tracker, Inc. Sign, based on the findings and conditions listed in the Staff Report: SECOND: Robert Imboden AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, and Anne McDermott NOES: None ABSENT: None RECUSED: Craig Wheeler MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for June 1, 2016 Page 4 of 16 AGENDA ITEMS Continued Items: 3) DRC No. 4800 -15 Roth Staffing • The applicant is requesting final approval of the landscaping and paving in connection a complete exterior remodel of an existing building. • 450 N. State College Blvd • Staff Contact: Robert Garcia, 714- 744 -7231 rgarcia @cityoforange.org • DRC Action: Final Determination Robert Garcia, Senior Planner, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. The applicant who was present for this project was Michael Snyder. Mr. Snyder stated that most of the concrete work would match the existing and he shared the new pavers being proposed. Public Comments: Chair Fox opened the item to the Public for comments. There were no speakers. Chair Fox opened the item to the Committee for discussion. The DRC commented on the following: • Concerned that the existing palm trees looked the worse for wear. • Confirmed that the irrigation would consist of a drip system. • Noted it was well designed. • Questioned if the Equisetum hyemale (horsetails) would be in raised planters and Mr. Snyder said yes. Committee Member McCormack made a motion to approve DRC No. 4800 -15, Roth Staffing, based on the findings and conditions listed in the Staff Report: SECOND: Craig Wheeler 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 June 1, 2016 Page 5 of 16 New Agenda Items: Committee Member Imboden made a motion to switch the agenda item order and hear Item #5, Ray Residence, first, and then Item #4, Town & Country Mixed Use: SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Anne McDermott, and Craig Wheeler NOES: None ABSENT: None (5) DRC No. 4848 -16 Ray Residence • A proposal to construct a historically compatible front porch for an existing contributing historic residence in the Old Towne Historic District. • 181 N. Center Street • Staff Contact: Kelly Ribuffo, 714 - 744 -7223, kribuffo @cityoforange.org • DRC Action: Final Determination Kelly Ribuffo, Associate Planner, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. The applicants who were present for this project were Jon Califf and Dale Ray. Public Comments: Chair Fox opened the item to the Public for comments. There were no speakers. Chair Fox opened the item to the Committee for discussion. The DRC commented on the following: • Not concerned with creating a false sense of history and it was compatible and within the period. • Question regarding the piece of concrete slab proposed to be replaced in the front porch. Mr. Califf stated it would be on the north and northwest portion only. Confirmed the applicant would not be demolishing the portion behind the existing deck. • Suggested adding a condition that it should not have any exposed modern hardware. • Questioned the finish of the new concrete slab. Mr. Ray said it would have the same trowel finish as the existing concrete. • Noted the tapered style of the columns is referred to as an elephantine column. Vice Chair Wheeler made a motion to approve DRC No. 4848 -16, Ray Residence, based on the findings and conditions listed in the Staff Report with the additional condition: 1. The new wooden railings shall be installed without the use of modern exposed hardware. SECOND: Tim McCormack City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for June 1, 2016 Page 6 of 16 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 June 1, 2016 Page 7 of 16 (4) MNSP No. 0829 -15 Town & Country Mixed Use • A proposal to develop a horizontal mixed -use development project by constructing a new residential building, two parking structures, and related site improvements adding to an existing six -acre project site developed with an office building and surface parking lot areas. • 999 W. Town & Country Road • Staff Contact: Anne Fox, 714- 744 -7220, afox@,cityoforange.org • DRC Action: Preliminary Review and Comment Anne Fox, Contract Planner, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. The applicants who were present for this project were Nick Markos, David Ho, and Ryan Dierking. Mr. Ho provided a PowerPoint presentation which showed the existing site plan, an aerial view, a three- dimensional view of the complex, the office parking structure, the elevations, and three - dimensional conceptual sketches. Mr. Dierking discussed the existing landscape conditions and the conceptual landscaping plans. The Committee asked the applicant to talk about the landscaping along the sidewalk area. Mr. Dierking stated there would be taller trees and the pop outs would have something like an Italian Cypress that would provide a column of green. Mr. Ho stated they were proposing to have some connectivity from the decks to the sidewalks. The Committee questioned the center plaza callbox. Mr. Ho explained it would be for the visitors coming into the parking structure. Public Comments: Chair Fox opened the item to the Public for comments. There were no speakers. Chair Fox opened the item to the Committee for discussion. The DRC commented on the following: • Happy to see the studies done on the north side of the new parking structure. • Asked if they had considered bringing more color into the recessed courtyards that face the on/off ramps. • Concerned with the size, depth, and location of the long horizontal bands. • Clarified that the turf block in the fire lane was not acceptable by the Fire Department. • Noted the proposed development was not responding to the existing development on the site and would be left with a building that appears out of place. • Did not understand the layout. Thought the parking would be next to the freeway and the living spaces would be away from the freeway but it was just the opposite. • Thought the freeway facade spoke to the existing development better than the south facade. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for June 1, 2016 Page 8 of 16 • Concerned with randomness of the color and the facade treatments in relation to the existing building. • Project could become stronger in appearing as a cohesive mixed use site if the separation of the 2 buildings was addressed. • Questioned the use of the Olive trees and the actual size that would be used. • Concerned with the horizontal urban mixed use aspect and thought the proposed building was not well integrated with the existing building. • Noted the proposed uses on the site were basically apartments, offices, and parking that do not speak to the street frontage. Thought there should be some other uses such as a cafe because there was no pedestrian feel or relationship. • Wanted materials introduced that would pull the buildings together. • Questioned the door connection along the Town & Country streetscape. It was clarified that all units would be accessed through an interior corridor. • Questioned if the large areas of glazing between the rear decks would go into the living spaces and that was confirmed. • Noted it was a chance to do something remarkable on the north elevation and was in support of the corridor windows. • Wanted to see more development and attention to detail where pedestrians meet the cars especially at the entry when people are coming and going at the same time of day. Seemed to be a safety concern and that pedestrians would not be comfortable in this area or avoid it which seemed to contradict with street frontage interface • Concerned with what would happen with the trash can area on trash day and how this will look in front of the office building. • Wanted the entry leading to the existing office building designed differently and suggested the fire lane be moved to another location. • Liked the planting palette. • Liked the increased density in the area. • Suggested more banding in between the bookends on the Town & Country facade and move it around the back corner. • Seemed like 4 different people designed each facade and wanted to see a more integrated design around the site. Noted a disconnect in the design vocabulary. • Liked the vertical signage. • Sheer wall on the parking structure was nice to see and suggested using a green screen on the freeway side. • Thought the project was saying too many things and they were not adding up to anything. • Questioned if something could be done to the existing building to make it more compatible and integrated. Wanted to see what the existing building actually looks like. • Questioned if the trees along the freeway were on the applicant's property. Mr. Ho said that needs to be surveyed and they probably would be removed. • Questioned if live /work units had been considered on the first floor along Town & Country. Mr. Ho said no. The Committee thought it should be considered. • Confused by the wood elements with wood tile on parts of the building and wood on a wall by the entrance and they seemed disconnected. A theme should be picked between the wood and the vibrant panels. • Wanted the applicant to look at ways of lighting the parking structure indirectly. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for June 1, 2016 Page 9 of 16 • Wanted the applicant to look at how the windows were placed on the north side of the parking structure. • Consensus that the color was not bad but the patterning might be creating another layer of differences in the building's appearance, and that some of the other layers might have to be calmed down. • Wanted the applicant to be certain to check with the Fire Department for laddering and the impacts to landscaping, tree placement, etc. as part of their Fire Master Plan in the formal application submittal. • Wanted a roof plan and a photographic legend of the proposed landscape palette on the Landscape Plan as part of the formal application submittal. For Preliminary Review only — no action required City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for June 1, 2016 Page l0 of 16 (6) DRC No. 4857 -16 Equity Partnership Residence • A proposal to construct a 741 square foot addition to a non - contributing single family residence and a new two -car garage in the Old Towne Historic District. • 375 S. Pixley Street, Old Towne Historic District • Staff Contact: Marissa Moshier, 714 - 744 -7243, mmoshier @cityoforange.org • DRC Action: Final Determination Marissa Moshier, Associate Planner- Historic Preservation, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. The applicant who was present for this project was Rafael Salas. Public Comments: Chair Fox opened the item to the Public for comments. There were no speakers. Chair Fox opened the item to the Committee for discussion. The DRC commented on the following: • Concerned with so many different kinds of windows and suggested using the same windows on the bedrooms. • Concerned on the rear elevation that the window next to the French doors seemed too close. • Noted the north elevation was drawn in a different scale. • Concerned that there was only one window on the north elevation which was in the dining room. • Noted it was a simple garage design and suggested having a man door or a window on the right side. • Noted the roof of the existing front porch was not in the same plane as the roof of the house. It was drawn differently on the plans. Suggested extending the existing porch roof, rather than rebuilding the porch roof to the same plane as the house roof. • Noted the existing porch has an extra set of columns at the building wall. Mr. Salas indicated he would want to take the extra columns off the existing wall and would not add the extra column to the new porch. • Noted the exterior door going out of the hallway on the north side of the house was not drawn correctly. Mr. Salas clarified that would be a single leaf French door to match the French doors at the master bedroom. • Suggested looking at the placement of the AC condenser unit. • Concerned with the metal railing on the porch because it seemed too tall and wanted to encourage lowering the railing under the window sills. • Noted that vertical siding on porches of this style was usually dog -eared at the bottom and thought that a dog -ear should be used instead of a flush cut on the bottom. Chair Fox made a motion to approve DRC No. 4857 -16, Equity Partnership Residence, based on the findings and conditions listed in the Staff Report with the following conditions: City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for June 1, 2016 Page 11 of 16 1. The back bedroom windows on the side elevation shall match the other bedroom windows which are casements and shall be the same size. 2. The back door out of the hallway to the back stoop shall be a French door instead of a solid door and it should match the breakups that are on the French doors of the master bedroom. With the following recommendations: 1. Create a man door in the garage out the side or the back. 2. Lower the front porch railing to a height that is below the front window sill if the building code allows. 3. Chamfer the vertical siding above the front porch and chamfer the edges of each board. 4. Consider putting another window on the side elevation facing the driveway to break up the plainness of that wall. SECOND: Craig Wheeler 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 June 1, 2016 Page 12 of 16 (7) DRC No. 4823 -15 Encore Residences Hewes • A request to construct 12 senior apartment units. • 130 S. Hewes Street • Staff Contact: Chad Ortlieb, (714) 744 -7237, cortlieb @cityoforange.org • DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. He discussed the changes made to the design of the project as a result of the feedback given by the DRC at the May 4 meeting. He explained the four issue items which included architectural improvements, the monument sign, Hewes Street facing elevation, and the planting plan. The applicants who were present for this project were Roger Hobbs and Jim Langston. Mr. Hobbs stated they have tried to accommodate all the suggestions made by the DRC except they wanted to keep the one window on the west elevation. Public Comments: Chair Fox opened the item to the Public for comments. There were no speakers. Chair Fox opened the item to the Committee for discussion. The DRC commented on the following: • Wanted to argue for getting rid of the window on the west side of Building A because of the privacy issue for the neighbor. Suggested using a higher window, raising the sill, or using translucent glass. Suggested adding more windows on the north elevation to make up for it. • Questioned the tile being used on the Hewes side. Mr. Langston said it would be a decorative Spanish tile. • Agreed with staff to add shuttered or arched non - opening recesses on the Hewes Street elevation. Mr. Langston suggested using wrought iron trellises for plants. • Appreciated the applicant's response to the previous DRC comments. • Did not understand the discrepancy in the shape of the deck drain scuppers and thought the round ones would stand out. One suggestion was to use a terra cotta barreled tile. • Liked the blankness of the portion of the east facade and it was nice with the style but understood the concern with graffiti. • Appreciated the wooden elements over the garage doors but suggested, in cases where there were 2 of them, that it be longer and spanned over the middle 2 doors instead of every other door. • Liked the shutter treatment. • Asked if the open and closed shutters were the same width. Mr. Langston said they would be. • Suggested, instead of using the Bougainvillea, to use Blood Red Trumpet vines and create a panel of green. • Noted the tree selection would be critical and suggested using a medium size tree instead of a small one. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for June 1, 2016 Page 13 of 16 • Concerned with the strawberry trees on paved areas because it would drop berries. • Liked that 1 tree was being used throughout the project. • Wanted the transitional plantings added. • Suggested, on the 2' planting strip, to use Boston ivy or an evergreen vine. • Wanted on the final landscape plans to have the trees and light fixtures shown on the same plan. • Concerned with one of the trellises that was directly under the pop out window and wanted it moved away. • Suggested clustering the trees against the wall by the wall signage. Mr. Ortlieb clarified that code requires trees every 30 lineal feet. • Noted one of the palm trees was in the middle of the shuttered window and suggested planting it to the side of the window opening. • Concerned on Building A on the north elevation on the corner above the club house that the pop out window did not align with anything below it and suggested the pop out shift to align with the bigger window in the clubhouse or to create something so the pop out responded to the downstairs. • Concerned on the front of Building A that the railing to the upper balcony was really thin above the roof. Mr. Langston suggested increasing the balcony so that the roof would not come as far back and would give more openness. Summarized comments: • Questioned the decorative Spanish tile in the portico area and what that was. Wanted a sample of it to come back to the DRC with the landscape plans. • Agreed the longer trellis elements should be grouped over 2 garage spaces instead separate ones and where there were single ones, the trellis be carried beyond those. • Consensus that the privacy issue needed to be addressed for Building A on the west elevation and that window needed to be mitigated with a transom window. • Shutters, whether open or closed, should be the same size. • Wanted the deck on Unit 3A pushed closer to Hewes to allow for more exposed wall. • Need to develop transitional planting palette and the Trumpet vine might be better than the Bougainvillea. • Look at a different tree type other than the strawberry tree. Suggested the Tristania or a mid- size Magnolia. Vice Chair Wheeler made a motion to recommend approval of DRC No. 4823 -15, Encore Residence Hewes, to the Planning Commission based on the findings and conditions listed in the Staff Report with the following conditions: 1. Condition #1, bullet 1, requiring rounded patio drain scuppers be omitted and the rectangular scuppers as shown shall be acceptable. 2. Sample of the tile to be used in the front feature element along Hewes Street come back to the Design Review Committee together with the landscape plan. 3. On the trellis element shown above the 1s floor garage doors, some of them could be changed to 2 trellises to cover 2 spans and in other cases where it was over a single garage door, that they be lengthened so the support point was at the midpoint of the column on each side of the garage door. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for June 1, 2016 Page 14 of 16 4. Shutters shown shall be all of the size that would be appropriate so when closed they would cover the opening. 5. The deck on Unit 3A closest to Hewes be moved forward so to increase the height of the stucco band above the roof and below the railing. 6. Enlarging the pop out on Building A on the north elevation over the community room to span over both the door and the window. 7. The window on the west elevation of Building A on the second floor be changed to a high sill transom style window and additional windows may be added on the north elevation of that same unit by widening the pop out similar to the others. SECOND: Tim McCormack 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 June 1, 2016 Page 15 of 16 (8) DRC No. 4749 -14 Orange -Olive Residential Landscaping and Lighting Plans • A request to approve landscaping and lighting plans associated with the Orange -Olive Residential project (25 detached single - family condominium units on a 2.33 acre site). • 2025 N. Orange -Olive Road • Staff Contact: Jennifer Le, (714) 744 -7238, jle @cityoforange.org • DRC Action: Final Determination Jennifer Le, Principal Planner, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. The applicants who were present for this project were Karen Alves and Peter Duarte. Public Comments: Chair Fox opened the item to the Public for comments. There were no speakers. Chair Fox opened the item to the Committee for discussion. The DRC commented on the following: • Stated the applicant had done a good job on screening the east and north side of the project. • DRC asked why the Applicant went with a more deciduous palette. Mr. Duarte explained that they had introduced the Tipu tree to provide a larger canopy and visual screening. • Noted it was harsh to have both the Italian Cypress and the Brisbane Box on the north and east side. • Questioned the intent of Condition #14 which did not address screening along the adjacent multifamily residences. Ms. Le explained that the primary concern was providing screening along only the portion of the lot abutting the single family residences. • Discussed whether screening along the entire northern perimeter property line was required and that individual owners would be responsible for maintaining the trees with enforcement by the HOA. Noted that only screening the single family residences did not keep the HOA out of the back yards. Ms. Le stated that, as proposed, a portion of the homes in the development would be obligated to maintain the trees per their CC &R' s. • Noted the Tipu trees would attract the parrots. • Concerned the Cordyline australis `Red Star' would eventually change into an odd shape. Committee Member McDermott made a motion to approve DRC No. 4749 -14, Olive Residential Landscaping and Lighting Plans, based on the findings and conditions listed in the Staff Report: SECOND: Tim McCormack 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 June 1, 2016 Page 16 of 16 ADJOURNMENT: Vice Chair Wheeler made a motion to adjourn to the next Design Review Committee meeting on Wednesday, June 15, 2016 at 5:00 p.m. SECOND: Anne McDermott AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Anne McDermott, and Craig Wheeler NOES: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. Meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m.