Loading...
03-21-2007 DRC MinutesCITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES -FINAL Committee Members Present: Committee Members Absent Jon Califf Bill Cathcart Craig Wheeler Joe Woollett Donnie DeWees 21 March 2007 Staff in Attendance: Leslie Aranda-Roseberry, Planning Manager Anne Fox, Contract Staff Planner Robert Garcia, Associate Planner Daniel Ryan, Senior Planner Sonal Thakur, Assistant Planner 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 7:40 p.m. to the next regular meeting on Wednesday, Apri14, 2007. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 21 March 2007 Page 2 of 15 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. Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve the following item by consent subject to the conditions in the Staff Report: 4. DRC No. 4202-07 & CUP 2622-06 -SPRINT WIRELESS Proposal for a new wireless telecommunications facility on a Southern California Edison tower. North of 2333 E. Taft Ave. Staff Contact: Robert Garcia, (714) 744-7231, rgarcia@cityoforange.org DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission SECOND: Joe Woollett AYES: Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Donnie DeWees MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 21 March 2007 Page 3 of 15 DRC No. 4126-06 - MACMILLAN RESIDENCE, ATTACHED & DETACHED GARAGES Proposal to construct a new single-family residence with attached garage. Proposal also includes construction of a detached garage having 12-foot high garage doors and a 15% reduction in the required front yard setback. The DRC reviewed this item originally at the February 21, 2007 meeting. 7736 East Sandberg Lane Staff Contact: Anne Fox, (714) 744-7229, afox(cr~,cityoforang_e.org DRC Action: Final Determination Contract Staff Planner Anne Fox provided a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Chair Califf asked the applicant if there were any other changes other than the removal of the plumbing since the last DRC review. The applicant replied, "No, the scope is exactly the same." Ms. Fox stated the original drawing that was considered and has the DRC approval stamp on it has the additional plumbing fixtures in the corner thus a modified drawing was provided. Public input was provided as follows: Ben Pruett, address on file stated: When this item was first considered by the DRC he was not involved in the project and when it went to the Planning Commission he was out of town which precluded him from expressing his concerns with the project at that time. If the doors were oriented to the south, it would resolve a lot of the issues. The side of the building would be softened up if the doors weren't there. Vegetation could be planted there to further soften the side. The egress and ingress is off of the street so maneuvering of the vehicles in and out of the garage will be an issue. Interference with other persons using the public right of way (including pedestrians) is also a factor. If the doors were on the south side of the project then the maneuvering would occur on the private property. He understands some work has been done already on the project but he also believes the project is at a stage where this modification could still be accommodated. He would like the Design Review Committee to give some consideration to this design change. It has been his experience that when projects of this nature come before either the Planning Commission or the Design Review Committee, the doors do become a major focal point so if there is a way it can be managed to soften it to the general pubic that should be a strategy that is looked at. Vegetation could be positioned so when the vehicles are outside of the garage they would not be so clearly visible from the street. Mel Vernon, address on file stated: He too is concerned with the mass and scale of the structure and the orientation of the doors. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 21 March 2007 Page 4 of 15 The egress and ingress is impacted on the street as it is a small street (15' or thereabouts). He is concerned that the renderings don't depict a human scale to show the size of the structure that maybe in an easement area. Contrary to what Staff has communicated, the neighborhood could be described as mid- century, ranch style. There are no structures of this size within 50' of the existing road so it is not compatible with what already exists. Although he could not find the exact ordinance, he believes this project still requires a Conditional Use Permit because an accessory structure may contain a utility sink; however, additional interior plumbing facilities may be permitted only upon issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. The Planning Commission continued this project for six items and he thinks it is important that Staff communicate what those items are. He stated some of them are: address the setback and a need for the applicant to communicate what the setback is on the property, the orientation of the doors should minimize the impact, allow the landform to be restored. He believed the landform was altered without permits or without any engineering calculations as to geological formations that may undermine the existing hill and present structure. This should be a concern for someone. Table 17.14.070 of the Residential Development Standards states in Item (H) "The following provisions apply to garages: 2. Garages that open on to an alley or private drive require 25-foot unobstructed back-up area, which may include alley right of way." There is an existing right of way document filed by the Orange County Flood Control District that determines the ultimate right of way for this project; consequently, based on that table this project should be 40' from the property line. Although it may be questionable, there may be an existing 50' easement dated back to the 1930's that impacts this project. Committee Member Wheeler asked if there was any possibility that Sandberg Lane would be moved into the easement. Ms. Fox responded the 15' easement that lies behind the private street easement is an easement in favor of the Orange County Flood Control District that hasn't been formally accepted after 44 years. She acknowledged it's on the books with the offering into dedication; however, acceptance has not been exercised. Committee Member Wheeler asked what the road was for. Ms. Fox responded "public road purposes." Ms. Fox stated that the original garage proposal that was already under building permit came all the way out but on the revised proposal it was cut back to account for the additional 15' with the exception of the minor (about 3') encroachment on the two corners. Chair Califf asked if Sandberg Lane is considered an alley in terms of the backup requirement. Ms. Fox responded negatively. Mr. Pruett stated if there is a requirement for a truck or recreational vehicle backup or turnaround area it is essentially different than for a vehicle and he suggested that be addressed. Ms. Fox responded that the section Mr. Vernon had quoted was not from the parking regulations; instead, it was from a table related to development standards for residential property which she read from and highlighted the minimum 20' setback. She stated that it also talked about garages that open City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 21 March 2007 Page 5 of 15 onto a private drive or alley and they require a 25' unobstructed backup area which may include the alley right of way. She concluded stating it had been appropriately applied. Planning Manager Leslie Aranda-Roseberry interjected that the same application has been done in Old Towne where there is a garage that fronts the alley and also in the commercial areas when there is a double loaded 90-degree parking and the driveway aisle has to be 25' for the movement of cars. Ms. Roseberry stated that in residential or Rl zones loading off the street, the driveway has to be 20'. Ms. Fox pinpointed the deepest portion of the driveway where the recreational vehicle is stored and stated most of the backing up of the recreational vehicle would occur on the MacMillan's property. Committee Member Wheeler asked Ms. Fox "what is the actual length of the driveway between the door to the garage and the property line in the direction the vehicle would be moved." The applicant responded approximately 60'. Committee Member Wheeler stated that based on the length of the driveway and the length of the inside of the garage, the only danger he could see would be if for some reason the easement would be used and Sandberg Lane would be moved then the neighborhood would have a problem. He added that the probability of that occurring seemed minimal. Mr. Pruett asked what the distance was to the property line. The applicant responded because of the curve it averages about 44' . Mr. Pruett asked what the second garage is to be used for. The applicant responded it would possibly be used for storage of a trailer or boat. Mr. Pruett asked if the RV would pull it. The applicant responded a truck would pull it. Committee Member Wheeler stated that the suggestion to relocate the garage doors to the south side of the garage would just be adding more pavement to the project than what they have already which is a problem discussed the last time. The objective was to reduce the amount of pavement as much as possible. Mr. Pruett stated the retaining wall would be 18'-19' and exposed. Committee Member Woollett stated his opinion was a big part of the issue was the height of the door and he stated the sketch didn't show how far up the dirt would go on the wall. Ms. Fox pointed out on the drawing where the retaining wall was with respect to the front of the structure. The architect stated the wall was back approximately 4' from the front of the structure and that basically the dirt would eventually be the same level as the roof. Committee Member Woollett stated the drawing is a bit misleading as it makes the wall look higher than it really is. The architect agreed. Committee Member Woollett asked the architect if he had given any thought to designing the doors in such a way that the pattern would be broken up in some way visually horizontally so they didn't seem like such a high, narrow doors. The architect responded that they obviously had to be high doors and what they were trying to achieve was to make them look rural, like a barn door. Chair Califf asked how high the doors were. Ms. Fox responded they were 12' on the ends and the architect interjected that they were 13'-6" in the middle. Committee Member City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 21 March 2007 Page 6 of 15 Woollett stated that creating the arc to match the home could be working against them in terms of the apparent height of the door. The architect stated if they brought the whole thing down in height it would get pretty close to the height of the RV and that someone from the City had suggested the arc to tie in the two structures. Ms. Fox stated that it was when they were looking at the Infill Guidelines that talked about consistency. Committee Member Woollett stated that they could still have consistency without having an exact match. Options discussed included a prominent horizontal line about 2/3 of the way up the door. The architect stated he would be happy to put in a couple of horizontal lines although he wasn't sure it would accomplish the objective. Chair Califf asked if a residential garage was limited to 1,000 square feet. Ms. Fox responded that she talked with the Building Department and they looked into the requirements. The Fire Department doesn't necessarily require sprinklers because the structure is less than 3,000 square feet; however, they would highly recommend them. Furthermore, they looked through the UBC and the limitation goes up to 3,000 square feet. The architect stated based on the composition of the building the burn ability of it is minimal. Committee Member Wheeler suggested a slightly protruding base with contrasting color or material to break up the visual height of the garage door. The architect responded they could look into it. Committee Member Wheeler stated they could use a similar feature material to what they are using on the house. The architect stated they could put a little skirt on the bottom as he thought that would look nice. Chair Califf stated that the retaining wall coming out from the corner of the garage could be moved a couple of feet towards the door. The architect stated he could do that but his preference would be to leave it as it is so they could put landscaping there which would soften it somewhat. Chair Califf stated that he meant they should wrap the slope around the first notch so as to bury the next corner back and that they do the same thing on the right side. The architect stated that it could be done on the right side but not on the left, as there is a door there that isn't visible on the drawings. Chair Califf provided an illustration on the drawings for the applicant and his architect to understand what he meant and how it would soften the existing mass of the doors. Committee Member Woollett asked the applicant's architect to explain how the garage doors are made. The architect responded he understands roll up doors cannot be any higher than 14' so they are doing barn type doors with rollers on the bottom and rather than rolling up they would pull out. In another section (which he pinpointed on the drawings) they would be using roll up doors. He stated they are segmented doors. Committee Member Woollett stated if they are segmented they already have horizontal lines that run all the way across and they should therefore stay with horizontal all the way. The architect agreed that they already have some horizontal lines; however, he added that they are pretty much imperceptible. The discussion ensued with the applicant stating they were trying to hold on to the option of being able to use wood versus metal doors and he reiterated they were going for a rural, barn door appearance. Committee Member Woollett stated that in response to the concerns of the neighbors and if they wanted to have a rural barn look, his preference would be that they make it a barn, which would be more compatible with the neighborhood. His opinion is the way it appears now it is a big fancy garage. The architect agreed and stated they could also add windows, which would break City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 21 March 2007 Page 7 of 15 up the appearance. Committee Member Cathcart stated that he agreed with the other Committee Members and that mirroring the house was more of a detriment to the overall look. The architect responded that it wasn't initially mirroring the house; it evolved based on the concerns expressed by Staff. Ms. Fox stated they were trying to create something more friendly in appearance as it is the structure closest to the street. Committee Member Cathcart stated that hopefully the property between the building and the garage would be heavily landscaped. The applicant responded that was the plan. Ms. Fox added that if there were windows in the doors they would be concerned with visibility of the RV. Committee Member Wheeler stated they could use obscured glass. The applicant stated the neighbors that actually live on his street are not opposed to the project at all and he added that neither Mr. Pruett nor Mr. Vernon live on the street. Chair Califf stated that their concerns are still valid and neighbors do change so the Committee takes into consideration all opinions as expressed. Chair Califf asked if the slope could be continued so there wouldn't be an additional vertical surface to be masked. The architect responded affirmatively and the drawings were sketched to illustrate how that could be accomplished. Committee Member Woollett stated he didn't want to tell them how to design the garage doors but he wanted to see what they would do to break up the height. The architect sketched three options for the Committee and an interactive discussion ensued. Committee Member Wheeler stated removal of the frame and the jams would be helpful. Chair Califf asked if the final landscape and irrigation plan was being submitted to Staff or coming back to the Committee. Ms. Fox responded it was requested by Committee Member Cathcart that it should come back to the Committee and she has conditioned (Condition #2) it accordingly. The applicant's architect asked what the timing was for it to come back to the Committee. Ms. Fox responded they could usually release the grading permit and while they are in building plan check they could get the plan before the Committee. Chair Califf asked if all the other conditions in the Staff Report were still valid based on the discussion at this meeting. Ms. Fox replied she didn't think any of the other items would change. Chair Califf made a motion to approve DRC No. 4126-06 subject to the recommendations contained in the Staff Report and the following additional conditions: 1) The applicant will alter the door design as noted by the Committee to eliminate the vertical trim at the center of the doors and use the largest practical width for the wood horizontal members. 2) The slope of the site will wrap around the southwest corner eliminating a proposed portion of the retaining wall. 3) At the northwest corner of the slope it will continue in the westerly direction eliminating the north/south retaining wall that appears in the elevations. 4) The applicant will consider using some of the featured materials from the house as a City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 21 March 2007 Page8of15 horizontal band on the garage to break up some of the horizontal mass. It could also be incorporated into the base of the retaining wall. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Donnie DeWees MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 21 March 2007 Page 9 of 15 2. DRC No. 4127-06 & CUP No. 2605-06 -CLAYTON NEW INFILL RESIDENTIAL Proposal to demolish anon-contributing, single-family residence, a second unit and garage, and construct a new 1-1/2 story single-family residence and accessory unit over a new 2-car garage. 376 S. Center Street (Old Towne Orange Historic District) Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, 714-744-7224, dryan@cityoforange.org DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission Chair Califf recused himself as he is the architect of record for this project. Senior Historic Planner Dan Ryan provided a project overview which included a review of two charts that demonstrated the context with the project if it was built as proposed and itemized the existing and proposed calculations of 1S` and 2na floor FAR, lot widths and depths, etc. Mr. Ryan pointed out that according to new information in the Old Towne Context Data concluded in January 2007, the subject property has a total building area of 3,343 square feet (versus 2,528 as specified in the Staff Report) on a 6,275 sq. ft. lot yielding a .53 FAR (versus .40 as specified in the Staff Report). He pointed out that is less than the one property that is .56 FAR but the average for the block is .31 FAR. This building would raise the average to .32 so in effect it would not have a context impact; however, the issue is how the building fits on the property itself, the relationship with the first and second floor and the relationship to the rest of the block. Committee Member Woollett asked if the second floor of the rear unit tends to bring up the second floor and not the building in the front. Mr. Ryan responded it adds to it but the smaller roof height of the second story in the rear is not visible from the street as it is 4' lower than the front house so the impact is negligible. Committee Member Wheeler asked if the covered porches were included in the FAR calculations. Mr. Ryan responded they were not. The applicant stated: Their daughter graduated from Chapman University. They have a lot of friendships established in Orange. They think it would be a great place to have grandkids come. They love Craftsman style homes. He loves to work with wood. They don't plan on renting out the accessory unit; it would be for their own use. The applicant's representative added the gate would be a swing style. They weren't sure if the drive would be stamped concrete. Materials would be carried from the house to the back unit. Mr. Ryan asked if the project should come back with the final landscape plan. Committee Member Cathcart responded that Staff could look at it. Public input was provided as follows: City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 21 March 2007 Page 10 of 15 Jeff Frankel, OTPA, asked Mr. Ryan if he stated the west side of the street was predominantly two stories or if he was referring to the accessory structures. Mr. Ryan responded the east side is principally one story and on the west side there are some one story in the front and two stories in the back. Mr. Frankel stated: They thought it looked much better with reduced massing of the second floor but they would like to see the FAR come down closer to the threshold of .35. He thought the design overall looked pretty good. He thought this structure stood out a little more than others on this side of the street as the others have the two story structures in the rear. He thought the rear porch looked a bit elaborate as traditionally they're more simplified which he believes is more appropriate. Janet Crenshaw, OTPA stated: She echoed the statements made by Mr. Frankel. She recalled a porch on Grand Avenue and that the Committee had that property owner remove some of the fanciness. Committee Member Woollett stated he thought Mr. Ryan had a good point relative to the second story area and the significance being how it works visually from the street. He also recalled a one and a half story structure is directly across the street which is rather similar to this project. Committee Member Woollett asked if there is a diamond element over the window on the east front elevation). Mr. Ryan responded that it is a leaded light. Committee Member Woollett stated that removing the little stucco building makes a substantial improvement over this piece of land and generally moves this part of town into the direction the Committee likes to see it moving. He stated he was really pleased how it is helping the whole neighborhood and he had no criticism at all. He expressed appreciation for the study data provided by Mr. Ryan, as his opinion was it was very helpful. Committee Member Cathcart stated he is so happy with the design now versus what exists that the FAR increase is not a bother to him. Committee Member Wheeler asked if there is a guard rail required on the south side for the basement as it appears to be approximately 5' deep. Mr. Ryan responded that typically there is an unsightly metal shroud and he agreed to look into it. Committee Member Wheeler stated he didn't see what the maximum height is from the ridge to above grade. He stated he would like to see a maximum they could live with that would ensure they don't get foundation creep so it would get higher than what they are seeing. He added that the finished floor to grade should not exceed 30" maximum and he believes it should be written on the plans. Committee Member Wheeler asked if the exterior window is metal. The applicant responded City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 21 March 2007 Page 11 of 15 affirmatively and added that it is an aluminum clad. Committee Member Woollett stated it is actually a metal clad wood window. Committee Member Wheeler stated his last and biggest comment was he didn't want to ask himself each time he drove by a similar house on Harwood if he should have voted for this project as it is so big. He offered two suggestions for the applicant to think about: 1) Cut down the second floor height a bit. He provided a sketch of what might work that moved the controlling height line back and dropped the ridge. He explained it would mean less head room in the closet but felt it was worth looking into. The reduction could be as much as 3'6" with this change. 2) He asked if they could get a streetscape drawn up to give the Committee an idea of how this project would look compared to the houses around it. A suggestion as to how this could be accomplished was provided. Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to continue DRC No. 4127-06 & CUP No. 2605-06 for the purpose of obtaining a section study and/or reduction in the massing as suggested. SECOND:Joe Woollett AYES:Bill Cathcart, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES:None ABSTAIN:None RECUSED:Jon Califf ABSENT:Donnie DeWees MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 21 March 2007 Page 12 of 15 3. DRC No. 4184-07 - CALDWELL RESIDENCE Proposal to restore an open porch that was enclosed on an 1886 Victorian residence, convert an existing hobby room into aone-car garage, and construct a new hobby room. 428 S. Orange Street (Old Towne Orange Historic District) Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, 714-744-7224, dryan@cityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination Senior Historic Planner Dan Ryan provided a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Chair Califf commended the project architect on his presentation stating it was as fine as any he had seen. The applicant provided photographs of other porches which they thought were reflective of the neighborhood. Mr. Ryan stated he liked the design very much of the lattice; however, the pickets required a 4" separation. The requirement for a guard rail was discussed and concluded with Chair Califf stating that if you're less than 30" off the ground, you actually don't need any guard rail. Public input was provided as follows: Janet Crenshaw, OTPA stated: She was jealous they would have their garage before she would. The north/south elevations picture the garage incorrectly. She is thrilled they are re-doing the porch. Jeff Frankel, OTPA, stated: He met with the Caldwell's and Mr. Turner and reviewed the proposed project in depth. This is about as good a project you'll get without any photo documentation. This is the second oldest house in the district. The porch design is appropriate and you'll probably not even be able to tell it wasn't the original porch. The garage is very appropriate with board and batten; very typical of the period. Extensive research has been done on this project and it's nice to see the Caldwell's be able to get on with construction. He's quite pleased with the project. Committee Member Wheeler suggested the intermediate outlooker rafters be smaller than the barge boards. The applicant's architect responded they could 2x4 tails with 2x6 barges. Committee Member Wheeler stated they should not have flat outlookers. Committee Member Wheeler stated he thought what they had for railing was wonderful. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 21 March 2007 Page 13 of 15 Chair Califf asked if they were too confident the NDO would hold up. The applicant responded painters love it" and what he did on the bottom was put a ledger, cut it at a 45 so the water runs off and not underneath so he doesn't have any problems with it. Chair Califf stated he didn't feel strong enough about it to ask him to change; he just wanted him to think about it. The applicant responded it could save the Caldwell's some money, they could use 5/8" fir and it would have a little bit of grain. He just didn't know how the fir would hold up. Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve DRC No. 4184-07 subject to the conditions in the Staff Report plus three additional conditions: 1) Staff's Condition #1 is removed. 2) The intermediate exposed rafter tails on the garage workshop structure should be approximately 2x4. 3) The overhangs should be framed in the traditional manner. SECOND: Jon Califf AYES: Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Donnie DeWees MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 21 March 2007 Page 14 of 15 4. DRC No. 4202-07 & CUP 2622-06 -SPRINT WIRELESS Proposal for a new wireless telecommunications facility on a Southern California Edison tower. North of 2333 E. Taft Ave. Staff Contact: Robert Garcia, (714) 744-7231, r ag rcia(~cityoforan~e.or~ DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission This project was approved by consent. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 21 March 2007 Page 15 of 15 REVIEW OF MINUTES: 1) FEBRUARY 7, 2007 (2) FEBRUARY 21, 2007 A motion was made by Chair Califf to approve the minutes of the February 7, 2007 and February 21, 2007 meetings with revisions as noted. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Donnie DeWees MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT: A motion was made by Chair Califf to adjourn to the next regular meeting on Wednesday, April 4, 2007. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Donnie DeWees MOTION CARRIED.