Loading...
02-07-2007 DRC MinutesCITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES -FINAL Committee Members Present: Jon Califf Bill Cathcart Donnie DeWees Craig Wheeler Joe Woollett Committee Members Absent: None 7 February 2007 Staff in Attendance: Leslie Aranda-Roseberry, Planning Manager Anne Fox, Contract Staff Planner Daniel Ryan, Senior Planner Sonal Thakur, Assistant Planner Howard Morris, Senior Landscape Coordinator Debbie Ritchey/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 7:30 p.m. to the next regular meeting on Wednesday, February 21, 2007. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 7 February 2007 Page 2 of 13 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Opportunity for members of the public to address the Design Review Committee on matters not listed on the Agenda. No public attendees addressed the Design Review Committee on matters not listed on the Agenda. 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 two projects were approved by consent. NOTE: motions were not received in the same chronological sequence as the agenda and appear herein in the order heard. 7. DRC No. 4185-07 -WELLS FARGO TEMPORARY TRAILERS A proposal to approve temporary trailers at the site of a Wells Fargo Bank building that has been destroyed by fire. 2535 North Tustin Street Staff Contact: Cathy Johnson, (714) 744-7225, cjohnson(r~cityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination A motion to approve DRC No. 4185-07 by consent subject to the conditions in the Staff Report and approval of the Orange Police Department was made by Craig Wheeler. No public comment was provided on this item. 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 7 February 2007 Page 3 of 13 5. DRC No. 4161-06 -ROYAL STREET COMMUNICATIONS - MONOPINE A proposal to approve a monopine telecommunications facility. 5921 East Carver Lane Staff Contact: Cathy Johnson, (714) 744-7225, ciohnson(cr~,cityoforange.org DRC Action: Recommendation to Planning Commission A motion to approve DRC No. 4161-06 by consent subject to the conditions in the Staff Report was made by Donnie DeWees. Committee Member Wheeler suggested the antennas be painted a darker green rather than being painted to match the foliage. No public comment was provided on this item. 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 7 February 2007 Page 4 of 13 1. DRC No. 4119-06 - BHALLA TRIPLEX Preliminary review of a proposal to demolish a 1,482 sq. ft. non-contributing one-story duplex and construct a new two-story, 3,414 sq. ft., three-unit apartment including covered and enclosed garages. 438-440 South Olive Street (Old Towne Orange Historic District) Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, 714-744-7224, dryan(c~r~cityouforange.org Prior Preliminary DRC Review on August 16, 2006 DRC Action: Preliminary Review Only Dan Ryan, Senior Planner Historic Preservation provided a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. The applicant added that they were concerned with the reduction in FAR to the degree stated in the Staff Report and reiterated by Mr. Ryan. Mr. Shiv Talwar pointed to two surrounding buildings and stated they are much larger and that Mr. Ryan's calculations were derived by taking an average that is impacted by the number of single story residences. Furthermore Mr. Talwar stated once they start reducing the FAR they would be reducing the overall square footage. Presently they are proposing three units and they may be forced to go to only 2 units, which is not economically feasible. Public comment was provided as follows: Jeff Frankel, OTPA stated: He agreed with Staff on the bulk and massing of the project. He thought it needed to be brought way down. Unfortunately the plans and Staff Report were not available at the library which precluded him from doing a comprehensive review. This particular block already has seven really large two story apartment buildings. He agreed with Staff on all points raised except he thought the FAR should go even lower and maybe move the second story development back further on the lot. This project would add to the cumulative impact of the area. He agreed that this property does drastically need improvement but the bulk and massing of this particular project is way too large and they would like to see it brought down. Janet Crenshaw, OTPA stated: She walks the area frequently where this project is proposed. She went to the library 3 times to obtain the Staff Report and plans to no avail. She asked if there is a point where the total overall FAR could be considered. Parking is already a huge problem in the area. With all the second floor living space there needs to be consideration given to privacy. Chair Califf asked Mr. Ryan to clarify the parking configurations. Mr. Ryan stated two units have an enclosed garage and one has covered parking. A review of the overall measurements including the open space was provided. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 7 February 2007 Page 5 of 13 Committee Member Woollett asked if the floor area of the buildings changed since the first meeting and if so how much. Mr. Ryan responded affirmatively; they went from 2203 sq. ft. on the first floor to 1963 and from 2360 on the second floor to 1724. The FAR has gone from .63 to 51. Mr. Ryan added that the critical area is the relationship of how much FAR is in the second floor. Committee Member Woollett stated his concern is if they aren't very careful on the mass issue, it won't be long before the other non contributing structures will be torn down and this will set a precedence which will mean the demise of the whole block. Mr. Ryan stated that he agrees they need to look at the whole communal affect. Committee Member Woollett stated he didn't even want to address the design until the bulk and mass is handled. He cited an example of an effective handling of the bulk and mass, which is set way back and has a different roof design. That particular structure is located directly across the street. He added that he saw this as a dilemma for the developer and stated that the zoning rules that apply to these parcels are at a variance with the Infill rules that need to be enforced. Mr. Ryan interjected that Staff would be supportive of a reduction in the setback to 15' and offered that the setback of the second floor would reduce the massing and create the desired streetscape. Committee Member DeWees agreed with the statements made by Committee Member Woollett and stated the big question he has is why didn't they take the committees previous suggestion of lowering the plate heights. The applicant responded they could do that, he didn't think that was an issue. The first floor has a 9' ceiling and the second floor is 8'. Chair Califf suggested they go to 8'6" on the first floor. Committee Member DeWees recalled that 8'6" was a minimum to the concession they were willing to make and their preference was to go to 8'. The applicants agreed there would be no issue with going to 8'6". Committee Member DeWees stated there were some things that could be done to tighten up the plans and he pointed those out on the plans for the applicants. A huge concern he mentioned was there appeared to be a whole sea of concrete and he suggested areas where there should be landscaping to minimize the visual impact. Chair Califf added that they definitely have to include the vine pockets that were mentioned previously. Committee Member DeWees noted there were some discrepancies in the plans and asked if they had decided to take off the exposed beam on the ridge. The applicant responded they would keep one. Committee Member DeWees stated they should keep it clean and simple. Committee Member DeWees remarked that the stone seemed very thin. Chair Califf stated he couldn't think of a single home of this style in Orange that has stone---they are stucco including the chimneys. Committee Member Wheeler agreed they shouldn't use stone. Chair Califf stated they needed to pay attention to the other homes of this scale in the City. Committee Member DeWees stated they also needed to pay attention to where the bed walls will be located versus windows. Committee Member DeWees suggested they sit down and put furniture layouts in and study how it will work. This could result in taking out mass from both the first and second floor plans without losing anything in terms of viability to rent the units. He City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 7 February 2007 Page 6 of 13 also mentioned there might be a problem with not enough risers in the stair well. Committee Member DeWees recalled the suggestion to put a hip on the rear unit, as it would help a great deal without compromising anything. Mr. Talwar stated they could go back and make some changes but they are still concerned they may not be able to achieve the reduction in the FAR to .42. Mr. Ryan reiterated that the issue is primarily the second floor FAR. Chair Califf asked if they had thought about the comment in the Staff Report relative to what you see when you look down the driveway and he suggested reversing some things, which would help the streetscape. Committee Member Wheeler suggested a Ramada style carport that would be less massive than a garage. Committee Member Wheeler stated that although the hip was a suggestion made at the last meeting, if they elect to not do it he would prefer to see the ridge on the front unit running in the other direction so there is a lower wall facing the street. He commented they had done a lot to simplify the number of arches but there is still a small problem where there are two different styles and a single style would be an improvement. Committee Member Wheeler stated a lot of inaccuracies still exist in the drawings that need to be remedied when they come back again (examples of the inaccuracies were provided i.e. cantilever overhangs not shown in all places, window placements that are incorrect, the plate heights are not accurate). Committee Member Wheeler stated the stone doesn't wrap the corner and should. As clay the is more traditional than concrete, Committee Member Wheeler suggested they change to clay. The applicant responded they would make that change. Committee Member Wheeler stated they still want to see a privacy study as to how the windows on the second floor relate to the buildings on either side. Chair Califf stated: If you modified the entry, if it was single story and up near the 10 ft setback, as long as the second story sets back, it would be better. The open space needs to be addressed, as it may not meet the requirement. Due to the amount of concrete, it should be broken up i.e. stamped or use pavers. Locations where this is applicable were pointed to on the drawings along with the areas where vine pockets need to be included. Parking was discussed as some of the spaces are marked "guest". The applicant stated there are two spaces per unit plus one guest. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 7 February 2007 Page 7 of 13 The FAR was discussed again with Chair Califf stating that it actually has more to do with what the project looks like as you can have a lousy looking .4 FAR project or you can have one that works at .45. The absolute number is less important than how it fits in. It was unanimous that the bulk of the second floor is the issue. The applicant asked if they could redesign it to reduce the bulk of the second floor if he could still retain the FAR at .49 or .5. Chair Califf responded they weren't going to commit whether that would work or not but he added reducing it by 600' or 700' may or may not be necessary to achieve the desired result; reducing the mass of the second floor or how it's placed on the site is key. Chair Califf asked for the drawings to be marked North-South-East-West and for the type of windows, materials of the windows and trims to be called out. He pointed out that in Old Towne even with the Infill Residential Design Guidelines they typically still require the use of historical-type windows i.e. single hung, double hung, casement, awning, not horizontal sliders. Committee Member DeWees asked that they show the break ups and how they plan to do the divided lights. Committee Member Wheeler suggested they use a different garage door. Chair Califf stated that although it was the right scale it wasn't an appropriate style. Chair Califf stated the degree of one of the cantilevers bothered him somewhat in that it was cantilevering over fairly narrow support. Committee Member Cathcart provided a handout of the Landscape Design Guidelines from the Landscape Coordinator and reiterated that he had requested at the last meeting they were to incorporate a minimum of two 24" box trees on the site and a street tree which should be coordinated with the City's Street Tree Coordinator. Committee Member Cathcart suggested they do away with the fountain in the front yard stating it was out of place and would be a maintenance nightmare. He reiterated that he would like to see a landscape plan that was to scale with the names of the plant materials and the quantities specified. He provided a list of the notes that belong on the plans; reminded the applicants that irrigation plans with an automatic sprinkler system should be provided and the vine pockets on the north property wall should be included. Committee Member DeWees made a motion to continue DRC No. 4119-06. SECOND: Craig Wheeler 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 7 February 2007 Page8of13 2. DRC No. 4124-06 - NOONAN RESIDENCE A proposal to construct a new second story, as well as an addition to the first floor of an existing single-family residence. 2338 East Altura Avenue Staff Contact: Sonal Thakur, 714-744-7239, sthakur cr,cityoforange.org Continued from November 15, 2006 DRC Meeting DRC Action: Final Determination Assistant Planner Sonal Thakur provided a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Mr. Noonan stated he took off the front entry and the decks and set the whole house back to the ridgeline. He confirmed he did raise the height (approximately 1') as stated by Ms. Thakur and added that he can bring it down somewhat if that is a request of the Committee. Mr. Noonan stated he thought he had done everything the committee had previously requested. Chair Califf stated his comment is somewhat similar to what he had said at the last meeting; the mass on the second floor appears to be stacked up and he was hoping it would be pushed back a little further. No public comment was provided on this item. Mr. Noonan stated he would do what it takes and asked what it was the Committee wanted him to do. Chair Califf responded he would like to see the form stepped down although he wasn't sure what it would take to accomplish that. Furthermore, he stated he was bothered that it was a fairly uniform mass. Committee Member Wheeler stated what bothered him was that he still didn't see compliance with the Infill Guidelines as it is proposed to be the biggest in regards to mass on the street. Mr. Noonan stated based on the direction of the Committee when he was told it was preferable to see a little more roof, he stepped it in. He added there was also a request to have it to the ridgeline and now it appears there needs to be further clarity as to what is requested. Committee Member Wheeler stated his reaction is if you are going to do something this large, the roof should plane on the front in its entirety without anything showing i.e. everything on the second floor needs to have egress and windows to the left or right and not to the front. Mr. Noonan responded that then you would have to be concerned with privacy issues as you'd be looking out onto your neighbors. Committee Member Wheeler agreed and added that the whole idea for the Infill Guidelines is to prevent building huge houses that don't agree with the neighborhood and the Committee needs to enforce the guidelines. Mr. Noonan responded he was familiar with the guidelines and asked what else the Committee wanted. Committee Member Wheeler stated a big improvement was made on the looks of the front. Committee Member Wheeler stated that he was a little disturbed by the fact that the back looks like a totally different house from the front although he thought that was perhaps not uncommon City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 7 February 2007 Page 9 of 13 in the neighborhood. Chair Califf stated the addition of at least one Dutch gable on the back of the house would help with this issue. Mr. Noonan was amenable to the addition of a gable. Committee Member Woollett stated he was reluctant to weigh in on the project at this point, as he was not present for the previous meetings. Chair Califf advised that the original proposal was not in keeping with the characteristics of ranch and that he still feels that way although he acknowledged they have taken a big step in the right direction by cleaning up the roof. Committee Member Woollett stated he had been to the neighborhood and looked around. His concern with this project is it would be a whole different scale than the other structures there and he thought it would be difficult to put a second floor in that particular neighborhood. Mr. Noonan stated he is right at the peak of the ridgeline; was anxious to move into the house and therefore wanted to know what the committee would like him to do to move the project along. Committee Member Wheeler pointed out if he did a different stair arrangement he could push a wall back further and create an image of having two second story elements to avoid having a continuous second story element all the way across. Committee Member Wheeler also requested the materials be shown on the drawings and perhaps the applicant look for a more interesting gable vent---wood was suggested. Chair Califf stated most of the homes have a flat roof the and he asked Mr. Noonan what style of roof the he intended to use. Mr. Noonan responded two of them have terra cotta, barrel style and he intended to use a small barrel style. Chair Califf stated he recommended not doing that and Committee Member Wheeler added he thought a flat the was more appropriate. Chair Califf stated he didn't see any terra cotta in the neighborhood. Mr. Noonan interjected there was one up on the left that was put on after he bought his house. Mr. Noonan also stated the next time he came in he would bring in a roof sample. Committee Member Wheeler asked to have the windows and trim match existing and to have all existing and proposed materials clearly labeled on the plans. Chair Califf made a motion to continue DRC No. 4124-06 with the guidance provided by the committee. SECOND: Craig Wheeler 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 7 February 2007 Page 10 of 13 3. DRC No. 4148-06 -WANG RETAIL CENTER A proposal for a new retail building. 130 East Taft Avenue Staff Contact: Sonal Thakur, 714-744-7239, sthakur rx,cityororange.org DRC Action: Final Determination Associate Planner Sonal Thakur provided a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. The applicant added there is an alley behind them and the fence had been knocked down several times. The architect reviewed the color scheme with the committee and was asked if he was amenable to the Staff suggestion to change the color in the front to create more depth and make the building entrance "pop out". The applicant responded they could do that. Committee Member Wheeler stated the cornice should wrap the corner and not stop abruptly. The applicant agreed. Chair Califf reviewed the size of the parking stalls where the planters are situated citing that for a commercial building the depth is not really sufficient. He advised the applicant that something less than 15' deep makes it difficult to park. Ms. Thakur responded that was an oversight and that it needs to be 18x8-1/2. Committee Member Woollett asked where the stucco finish would stop and the block would start. The applicant responded they would be doing stucco all the way around. Committee Member Wheeler suggested they not stucco a portion that abuts another building and pinpointed that portion on the drawings. The discussion ensued about the landscape area and the parking lot. Ms. Thakur advised that they could modify or add more landscaping as 10% of the parking lot needs to have landscaping. Committee Member Cathcart indicated that the plant material specified is not appropriate. He suggested a ground cover in the front and society garlic along the wall. Committee Member Cathcart stated the backflow device should have a wire enclosure around it for security purposes. Furthermore, the turf area needs to be flat (no mounds) as you can't have water runoff onto a public right of way. Chair Califf asked if MPDES requires covering the trash enclosures. Committee Member Cathcart responded the trash needs to have a flip cover. Chair Califf asked if the trash enclosure area should be stucco finished to match the building. Committee Member Cathcart indicated they have vines on it, which is okay; however, they are specifying Star Jasmine which won't cling so there has to be some methodology to attach it or they need to change the variety of vine. The applicant responded they would leave that to their landscape architect. Committee Member Cathcart suggested the addition of another Crape Myrtle to balance the entry and it should be a mildew resistant variety. Other changes stated by Committee Member Cathcart were: the 4" pop-ups should be changed to 6" pop-ups City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 7 February 2007 Page 11 of 13 the 6" pop-ups should be changed to 12" pop-ups the lateral class PVC 200 should be Schedule 40B Committee Member DeWees indicated his concern was the enormous cornice on a small, simple building. Committee Member Wheeler suggested the use of a contemporary cornice that matches the edge of the overhang. It was agreed that would be a cleaner, more consistent look. Committee Member DeWees made a motion to continue DRC No. 4148-06. SECOND: Joe Woollett AYES: Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: Donnie DeWees ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 7 February 2007 Page 12 of 13 Chair Califf announced that all other items had either been consented or withdrawn. Withdrawn items included: Item #4. DRC No. 4150-06 -THE BIRD CLINIC. and Item #6. DRC No. 4169-06 -THE CINGULAR WIRELESS, CHURCH SANCTUARY. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 7 February 2007 Page 13 of 13 REVIEW OF MINUTES: Chair Califf made a motion to approve the minutes of the January 17, 2007 meeting with revisions as noted. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES:Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES:None ABSTAIN:None ABSENT:None MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT: A motion was made by Chair Califf to adjourn until the next regular meeting on Wednesday, February 21, 2007. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED.