Loading...
04-15-2009 DRC MinutesCITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES -FINAL April 15, 2009 Committee Members Present: Adrienne Gladson Tim McCormack Craig Wheeler Joe Woollett Committee Members Absent: Bill Cathcart Staff in Attendance: Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager Jennifer Le, Senior Planner Robert Garcia, Associate Planner Doris Nguyen, Associate Planner Sonal Thakur, Assistant Planner Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary Administrative Session - 5:00 P.M. The Committee met for an Administrative Session beginning at 5:08 p.m. Chair McCormack opened the Administrative Session with any information from Staff. Planning Manager, Leslie Aranda Roseberry, stated she had no further information and she had not received any requests for continuance. There was no policy or procedural information to discuss. The Committee reviewed the minutes from the regular Design Review Committee (DRC) Meeting of April 1, 2009. Changes and corrections were noted. Committee Member Gladson made a motion to adjourn the Administrative Session. Administrative Session adjourned at 5:15 p.m. SECOND: Joe Woollett AYES: Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Joe Woollett, Craig Wheeler NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Bill Cathcart MOTION CARRIED. Regular Session - 5:30 P.M. ROLL CALL: Committee Member Cathcart was absent. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 15, 2009 Page 2 of 34 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Opportunity for members of the public to address the Design Review Committee on matters not listed on the Agenda. There was none. 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. 1) APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 1, 2009 Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve the minutes from the regular meeting of April 1, 2009, with the changes and corrections noted. SECOND: Joe Woollett AYES: Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Joe Woollett, Craig Wheeler NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Bill Cathcart MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 15, 2009 Page 3 of 34 AGENDA ITEMS: Continued Items: 2) DRC No. 4205-07 -COPTIC ORTHODOX CHURCH A proposal to expand an existing church on the first and second floor, to remodel the exterior, and make associated site developments in the form of new parking, landscaping, and lighting. 491 North Hewes Street Staff Contact: Sonal Thakur, 714-744-7239, sthakur(a,cityoforange.org Continued from DRC Meeting of March 18, 2009 DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission Assistant Planner, Sonal Thakur, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Michael Morcos, address on file, stated they had made changes and had included those on the revised sheets. The west elevation had been modified to be consistent with the floor plans. The entry had been narrowed and was a lot better. Public Comment None. Chair McCormack opened the item for discussion. Committee Member Wheeler stated he was pleased with the revised project and he liked the new treatment of the windows and the rhythm was better than what had been previously reviewed. The rose window worked better. Everything had been completed as suggested. He stated on the exposed trusses it appeared they were designed to be visible from inside. Assuming that they would be spaced fairly far apart, he suspected that there would need to be purlins and thus the roof height might need to be increased. Mr. Morcos stated he changed the round window in the front based on the Committee's suggestion and it looked much better. Committee Member Wheeler asked what color would the body of the building be? Mr. Morcos stated it would be a very light beige. Committee Member Wheeler supported using a slightly lighter color like a finished stone around the windows as opposed to a darker rough stone. Committee Member Woollett stated he echoed the comments made by Committee Member Wheeler and he felt they had done a great job on the building. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 15, 2009 Page 4 of 34 Committee Member Gladson stated she wanted to get some things clear in her mind. There was a reference in the Staff Report that the outdoor patio area was rotated in the revised plan and would that be corrected? Mr. Marcos stated it was completed a while ago and they had switched it and it would be corrected. Referring to the plans, he pointed out where the handicapped parking had been and they relocated the space closer to the entry and used the space where the handicapped parking space had been to plant trees. They had added, based on the comments regarding shading, two landscape fingers and had an area for parking for ladies with strollers or whatever. Committee Member Gladson stated the architecture was well thought out and read beautifully and had some nice features. It was consistent. There were tree specimens, and she had learned from being on the Committee, with the Queen palms that read as 13 and 15 gallons she thought that was small. She appreciated that the applicant included the information for the southern property line and showed the trees on the property next door. She was generally fine with it. She suggested that they have their package really nice and ready to go to Commission as that was their last step. She asked if the project appeared to have a parking deficiency? Ms. Thakur stated there would be a discussion in the Planning Commission Report, that presented by code the amount of required spaces and that based on the timing of the uses the parking would work and should not be an issue. Committee Member Gladson stated she was supportive of the project. Chair McCormack stated he too was supportive of the project and stated that the applicant had done a great job on the architecture. They had done everything the Committee had asked them to do. He had some issues, however, things that they needed to review. Overall the site plan, landscape plan, and civil plan were all in conflict with each other and none of them matched at all. He wanted to bring that to their attention and he proceeded to review those documents. He stated he felt the applicant would need to make decisions that would clarify the proposed project. There were some discrepancies, as the engineer would want to put a swale in and the landscape architect would want to put a mound in and there could not be both. There were Queen Palms in the swale which would not work. They had completed the loading area and they had discussed having a ramp and the area being handicap accessible which would need to show a ramp with truncated domes. Mr. Marcos stated he intended to show that for the construction document phase. He could show it to the Committee now. Chair McCormack stated that was fine. Mr. Marcos pointed out the proposed changes. Chair McCormack stated the civil plans would need to show it or the applicant would not get through the Building Department. He reviewed the plans with the applicants and pointed out the discrepancies between plans. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 15, 2009 Page 5 of 34 Mr. Marcos stated they had not made all the adjustments. The applicants had wanted to get the final review and to verify all was okay before they had made the changes. Chair McCormack pointed out an area on the plans and asked if the area was all zero curb? Mr. Marcos stated where the loading zone was. Chair McCormack stated that was not in compliance with ADA. He pointed out where the handicap ramp should go and where a wheel stop could be added. Committee Member Woollett asked if there could be a zero curb all along the area with bollards to stop traffic instead of a wheel stop? Chair McCormack stated that would work. On the landscape plan he could not determine what was existing and what was proposed. He pointed out items on the plans and stated he hadn't known what that was. Applicant, Richard Garcia, address on file, stated there were notes on the plans and he had called out existing. Mr. Marcos stated they would provide a color landscape plan to the Planning Commission. A specific color could be used for existing. Chair McCormack stated a 15 gallon Queen Palm was smaller than he was and it had no strength in the trunk. Nowadays, on projects that had the public involved they called it out as brown trunk height, there could be an 8' or 9' brown trunk height that they could use. He pointed out on the plans that the civil engineer had mounds, and Queen Palms were noted on those mounds. With a Swale that would collect water and the conflict in plans, it was not accomplishing what they had wanted. He pointed out where things could be moved on the plans to make the proposed project work. Ms. Thakur stated the proposed project would need to be consistent with the WQMP that had been approved. Mr. Marcos stated the landscape plans would be corrected. Chair McCormack stated in reviewing the plant palette they could save some money by eliminating some of the plants and use Italian Cypress to close the gaps. It would provide privacy. Committee Member Wheeler asked if there was another type of tree that could be planted between the Italian Cypress to create a nice rhythm? Chair McCormack stated it was a good idea; however, it was a prime opportunity to make a strong statement in that area. Mr. Garcia asked if he had an opinion on another specie? City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 15, 2009 Page 6 of 34 Chair McCormack suggested saving some of the existing shrubs and adding some ground cover and to simplify the areas. Mr. Garcia asked if they planted more Italian Cypress could they use 15 gallon? Chair McCormack stated he had no objection to that. Mr. Garcia stated he had worked up all the quantities that had been suggested in the Landscape Guidelines and that was why some of the Palm trees had been short changed. He pointed out some areas where the trees could be bumped up to brown trunk height. Committee Member Gladson stated as the applicant was making a long term investment on their property it would be in their best interest. Chair McCormack suggested they coordinate any discrepancies on the plans before they presented it to the Planning Commission. Chair McCormack made a motion to recommend approval to the Planning Commission, DRC No. 4205-07, Coptic Orthodox Church, subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report and the additional comments as noted during the review and with the following conditions: 1. To have consistency between the civil, architectural, and landscape plans to be focused on the Hewes Avenue streetscape with a filtration swale as opposed to the mounding that was shown on the landscape plans. 2. The main entry of the church to be coordinated with the civil plan and to show truncated domes and zero curbs. 3. The newly located handicapped area to have a zero curb, wheel stops, and a curb at the new patio area. 4. The Queen Palm trees to be brown trunk height minimum to allow people to walk underneath them. 5. The landscape plans shall show where the 24" box trees would be planted. 6. The end islands where trees would be planted to be large enough to accommodate the trees. And with the following suggestion: 1. To remove the shrub row shown in the plans and plant Italian Cypress in the gaps of the existing Italian Cypress and plant ground cover. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 15, 2009 Page 7 of 34 SECOND: Adrienne Gladson AYES: Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Joe Woollett, Craig Wheeler NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Bill Cathcart MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 15, 2009 Page 8 of 34 3) DRC No. 4364-08 - IRV SEAVER BMW A proposal to demolish a 1,500 square foot service building and add 3,850 square feet to an existing motorcycle dealership. The applicant has scaled the project down and is short on tree count. 607 West Katella Avenue Staff Contact: Robert Garcia, 714-744-7231, r~arcia(a~cityoforange.org Continued from DRC Meeting of December 17, 2008 DRC Action: Final Determination Associate Planner, Robert Garcia, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Jon Califf, address on file, stated he wanted to clarify that the changes to what had been previously presented and what they were now proposing, was that they would be leaving the existing planter and paved areas as existed. They would be re-striping the lot for an accessible stall which had not existed. Public Comment None. Chair McCormack opened the item for discussion. Committee Member Wheeler asked how one would get to the mezzanine? Mr. Califf stated they had not reconfigured the first floor as they were waiting for some input from the service crew; they had not added the 2"d floor access for that reason. He pointed to an area where the stairway would most likely be built. Committee Member Wheeler stated it looked good and he had no problem with the proposed project, except for the question of the trees. Committee Member Woollett asked if the second floor would be used for storage? Mr. Califf stated a little bit of it would and there would be some office space with an open area. Committee Member Woollett asked if there had been any consideration in adding a lift? He asked that, as adding a lift might add something sticking out from above which the DRC would be interested in. Mr. Califf stated there would not be a lift. Since the last review the applicant had purchased property across the street which gave him some more elbow room. Chair McCormack stated he thought the architecture was great and he had no issue with that. He stated he did not understand why there was no landscape plan submitted with the proposal. With the proposed project being a final determination, since there was no landscape plan to review and City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 15, 2009 Page 9 of 34 one of the issues was the landscape plan previously, the minutes from December 17, 2008 clearly noted that, he had nothing to add. Mr. Califf stated the existing planter areas would remain, it would be left unchanged. Previously it had been a tree count issue and they had obtained professional input and there would be a professional plan. Chair McCormack stated it needed to come to the DRC, not to Community Services. Mr. Califf stated he understood that, however, given the scope of what existed and the fact that they were attempting to determine the tree count and it appeared that it was not necessary to determine that with the proposed submittal. If they were coming through initially without changing the landscape planting and they were proposing adding additional trees, they would just show it on the site plan and go to Community Services with the landscape plan prior to permit. They had gone beyond that and come back. Chair McCormack stated they had not come back with anything. Mr. Califf stated they had gone back with the proposal. Chair McCormack stated but there was no landscape plan. Mr. Califf asked Chair McCormack if he understood that they had returned to the existing planter areas - to what currently existed on the property? Chair McCormack stated there was no landscape plan to review; the applicant had not presented anything. He could not speak for the rest of the board members, but in his package there was not a landscape plan. Committee Member Woollett stated that the applicant was stating that there had not been any changes made to the landscaping. Chair McCormack stated the applicant had not addressed, which was a cogent issue at the last meeting, how to deal with the tree counts. He felt they had asked the applicant to come up with a creative solution. He read from the December 17, 2008 minutes: "Mr. Califf asked with a creative solution which had been mentioned could it be approved through Community Services or by the DRC, or by the Planning Commission? Chair McCormack stated he believed the applicant needed to prove the point and apply for a variance. The landscape architect would need to take a look at it and see how they would propose to get it." In other words, the applicant had to come up with a concept on what they had to deal with the tree count. Mr. Califf stated that comment was based on a previously submitted completely different plan. Chair McCormack stated they did not have a plan at all. Applicant, Evan Bell, address on file, stated there was an existing parking lot that complied with the existing landscaping. It had juniper bushes. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 15, 2009 Page 10 of 34 Chair McCormack stated there was no landscape plan and they had actually gone further back, they had not gone forward, the applicant had not given them anything. Mr. Bell stated wait a minute. Chair McCormack stated there was not a landscape plan to review to deal with the tree count issue. They could not ask for a variance on something they had not proposed to do. Planning Manager, Leslie Aranda Roseberry, stated there was actually a couple of things they could do and a couple of different issues presented. The applicant was stating that they had scaled back the project and it included not having to touch the parking area or the landscape areas on the property. Their hope was that they could deal with the landscape areas with Staff. If the applicant had come back with the same project that had affected the landscape areas which would have included some changes to the parking lot and landscape areas they had understood that the landscape plan would have needed to have been included in their submittal. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated the other issue was in looking at the City's municipal code and the landscape standards and guidelines, as far as tree counts were concerned they were not looking at doing variances for those. They would review the benchmark and complete the calculation and bring that forward to the DRC with the applicant's proposal to review. In discussions, Chair McCormack and Committee Member Cathcart had stated that many times the calculation for the tree count had not worked for specific sites. What they had before them was a choice; since the planter area had not changed and as she understood it the landscape areas had not changed those pieces could be dealt with at the Staff level. If the DRC as a whole preferred to see a landscape plan, that could be a condition. The proposal could be bifurcated, if so inclined, to approve the construction of the addition and then ask for a landscape plan to return to the DRC at a later date. It would not preclude the applicant from moving forward in the construction of the addition. Those were a few things for the applicant and the DRC to take into consideration. Committee Member Wheeler suggested, with the landscape remaining as existed, it appeared to him that the question was how many trees would the applicant be required to add? He understood that the proposed project would need to be brought up to the current standard for their tree count due to the addition. It was a good point for the DRC to discuss how many trees they felt was needed. As far as knowing where the trees would go, that part could be left up to Staff to determine. He would be pleased, once the number of trees was determined, to allow Staff to take care of it. He had a suggestion on the way to approach the number of trees required, He felt they were in agreement that one of the problems with the existing requirement was to take the perimeter of the lot, plus the perimeter of the building, plus the length of the parking stalls, however, in the proposed project with the property line being the perimeter of the building there was a length that would not be plantable. By his calculations, that perimeter was 169' long, and he suggested that they take double that distance, one for the property line and one for the building and subtract that from the required length and divide that by four. His calculation arrived at 9.41ess trees than what the formula required, and would bring the requirement down to 19 trees. Committee Member Wheeler stated his suggestion would be to require the applicant to provide 19 treese It would be a suitable amount and they could go with that. Chair McCormack stated he agreed 100% with Committee Member Wheeler; however, that was the issue at the last meeting. They had not seen anyone flush that out and kind of go through that design process. It was a unique project. They almost would need to apply for a variance. They City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 15, 2009 Page 11 of 34 needed to show it. There had been an issue previously when an applicant had stated it would not work, and the question was why would it not work? It was not the DRC's purview to design for the applicant. It should come forth for review and part of his issue was that there was no plan submitted for review. Chair McCormack asked could he throw 19 Coast Live Oak trees on the site, no, could he throw 19 Craig Myrtles on the site, maybe. He stated there had been no design thought, no input, no professional input. Mr. Califf stated actually there had been. Chair McCormack stated it had not been submitted. Mr. Califf stated correct, due to the fact that the amount of trees that had been arrived at was from the previous layout. They had obtained that prior to reconfiguring the project. The applicant was not really interested in the 20-something trees they had come up with. They felt they would return to the DRC and obtain the input on the number of required trees and return to the professional who had worked on the interim input and have the right kind of tree and the right location. The main concern of the applicant was that they got an appropriate number of trees for the planter area along the side street as visibility was a factor. Anything that would go along an area he pointed to on the drawings, with the low signage, would screen the signs and they wanted to have the right plantings. The number that would be appropriate for the width and dimension of the planter is what they were seeking. Chair McCormack stated the project was precedent-setting and it was important to get it right. He wanted to make a motion to approve the building submittal and continue a separate submittal of the landscape plan to address the tree count on a separate package. Committee Member Wheeler stated as he understood it, the feeling was that the DRC had the authority to determine the number of trees. Chair McCormack stated he thought they just had, 19 trees. Committee Member Wheeler stated it came down to a decision that if they could state how many trees needed to be provided, would it need to return to the DRC or could it be handled at a Staff level, Chair McCormack stated he personally felt it needed to be handled by the DRC, as it was a situation that would need to be looked at for the number of trees and the type of trees proposed. Because they would ask for a variance or create a new formula for that, they could come up on a future project and use the proposed project as a reference and want the same exception. There were issues of visibility that were important to the client and it had to work all the way around. They had to come up with a design. Committee Member Woollett stated they had come up with a number that appeared to be a fair number and in order for them to evaluate what was appropriate for the site, when modifying the guidelines; it was probably good to review it. It could be that 19 trees were way too many for the site. To ask them to provide 19 trees might not work. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 15, 2009 Page 12 of 34 Mr. Bell stated there were existing junipers that were well established. With the water issues that the community was facing, the junipers were not generally watered, they remained beautiful all year round. They were trimmed once a year and many of them were 5' tall. Although they could not be counted as trees, there was a beautiful green area. It allowed visibility to the building and the motorcycles that were on display. To place 19 trees would cut the visibility. Committee Member Woollett stated it would depend on the type of tree. Chair McCormack stated they could not count the junipers as trees, they were shrubs. Mr. Bell stated they were ideal for his landscaping and had been there for years. They were very economical from a water standpoint. He had a sprinkler system in that area that was never turned on. Committee Member Gladson stated she believed Chair McCormack had made a motion and she would second that motion so they could discuss further. She was moving toward the idea of having a chance to review it again for the landscape proposal. She was not convinced that 19 was the magic number because of the unusual circumstance of the property. She appreciated that the DRC had the ability to review the project and determine what the good design concept was that would fit and at the same time she understood why her colleague was struggling with the chicken and the egg thing. Until they knew where the trees would be planted they could not determine if it would work. She would be in support of having another look at it and even to work out the details with Staff to determine a proper mix of trees. She was fine with the building and wanted the building to move on and get built. It was not a variance on the number part of it, they had a guideline to start with and they had spoken about it on other projects. The number might be too high. Chair McCormack stated when the trees were up high they would not screen anything except the sky and would provide shade. The whole point of the tree requirement in the City of Orange was to provide shade, it was the real thing. The issue of screening, with a tall tree it would not screen anything and he felt that argument would not hold water, as well as typically trees would not require a lot of water, depending on the specie of tree that was used. With that said, he felt the applicant should return to the DRC with a landscape plan that focused on dealing with that issue. Committee Member Wheeler suggested the applicant could use Palm trees in the Katella planting area. Chair McCormack made a motion to bifurcate the building proposal and landscape requirement. To recommend approval of the building on DRC No. 4364-08, Irv Seaver BMW, subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report and to have the landscape plan continued and return to the DRC at a later date for review based on a tree count of 19. To include those 19 trees on the proposed landscape plan or submit a plan with the number of trees that would work for the site and a reason why the 19 trees would not work on the site, keeping in mind the streetscape for the coordination of the trees into the project. SECOND: Adrienne Gladson AYES: Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Joe Woollett, Craig Wheeler NOES: None City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 15, 2009 Page 13 of 34 ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Bill Cathcart MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 15, 2009 Page 14 of 34 New Agenda Items: 4) DRC No. 4415-09 -FIRE STATION N0.4 REMODEL A proposal to demolish and reconstruct the apparatus bay to add 436 square feet and raise the roof from 12'-11" to 21'-8". The addition of a 340 square foot exercise room at the rear of the building is also proposed. 201 South Esplanade Street Staff Contact: Jennifer Le, 714-744-7238, jlencityoforange.org DRC Action: Recommendation to the City Council Senior Planner, Jennifer Le, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Donnie DeWees, address on filed, stated the project was challenging as there were many parameters that they were working within; there was the cost of the project and the budget that they were working in. In the packet there was a combination site plan and floor plan. Generally it would not be included in that manner; however, it was used in order to have the project fit. They were shoe horning it into the space and reconstructing the apparatus room. They were adding an area, in reference to the footprint, and tearing down the existing apparatus room and rebuilding from scratch. They were adding height and mass to the building. He stated they had done everything they could to mitigate the mass and scaling and everything was down to bare minimums -relative with what was necessary at a fire station. There was a 14' tall apparatus door, which left them with 2'. There was room for the opener on the ceiling and other ceiling equipment which got them to an 18' tall wall around the perimeter. They wanted to find a way to tie the new construction into the existing building and they used the existing roof slope which brought them to the 21' roof height. It was the minimum that they could do; 7'2" was the furthest they could push out and maintain the wash down area. The architecture was looked at in keeping with the existing architectural fabric of what existed. He pointed out on the photograph the mid-century entry, there was brick with clear windows and transoms and simple poles that supported the roof elements. They drew off of that to incorporate into the design of the addition and added a more friendly front door as it addressed the street. Ms. Le stated there were two elevations being presented. One elevation showed keeping the existing brick at the entry and painting the wood door. The other elevation showed painted brick with an accent color for the door. The Fire Department's desire would be to paint the brick and it was being presented to the DRC for their input. Mr. DeWees stated one version would be to paint the building a light tan with a terra cotta accent. The other idea would be to keep the existing brick and to change the door to gray to match the apparatus doors. Committee Member Woollett stated for that period of building one of the things that was dear to him was not to paint natural materials. Once it was painted it would need to be repainted and he suggested not painting the brick. Concrete block would change over the years; it would discolor, get dirty and stained. One of the things that could be done would be to add a light wash of the same color over it. Part of the aesthetic integrity of the style of the Fire Department building was City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 15, 2009 Page 15 of 34 to use as many natural colors as possible. Unless there was a really good argument, he felt they should keep the existing colors. Add a colorful door as it was certainly part of the style of that period of architecture. Chair McCormack stated they would allow the applicant to finish, then open the discussion for public comment and then for DRC discussion. Mr. DeWees stated they would be painting the new CMU, the main reason for that was for graffiti control in the area. His preference would be to have a sandblasted block, however, the existing was painted and they wanted to match what was there. In terms of the fence they would be adding a tubular steel fence that would replace the existing chain link fence. They had to be careful with the costs of the project. The tubular steel fence would be painted and with the privacy issue they may add some heavy fabric, or mesh behind the landscape. The second tubular fence would match and balance out the project. An asphalt shingle roof was used for costs; it was not very visible as the roof was so high. There would be series of sky lights added on either side of the ridge which would be purely operational to add light to the apparatus room. The room was the heart and soul; the most important part of the Fire Station. There would be clear story lighting in the same plane as the sky lights. Public Comment None. Chair McCormack opened the item for discussion. Committee Member Wheeler asked how would the flag be raised? Applicant, Patrick Dibb, address on file, stated they would use a cleat. Committee Member Wheeler stated it appeared that it went up through a hole in the roof. Mr. DeWees stated it would be fixed with a light. Committee Member Wheeler asked if it would be lowered to half-staff if required by the State? Mr. DeWees stated they could do that, it needed to be high enough to not hit the asphalt. They were using an existing set up. It was the same set up at Fire Station No. 3 and went through the roof. If it was permanently lit it met the flag codes. Committee Member Wheeler stated he appreciated that they were incorporating the new building into the design of the existing building. In that type of architecture the windows would be pushed up under the eaves, which was a good energy saving technique. He had run a project through an energy program with and without the windows raised and it made a very large difference in energy savings. He assumed the space was not conditioned and suggested moving the windows up to match the others and it would allow a taller thermal chimney to draw air toward the top. They could add low intake vents for more natural circulation. They could add a color band to the windows. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 15, 2009 Page 16 of 34 Committee Member Gladson stated they could incorporate that onto the sides. Mr. DeWees stated they could change that and it was easily doable. Committee Member Wheeler stated on the two windows in the center, they could pick up the motif from the north of the building and have the windows closer to the sides. Committee Member Gladson stated she would duplicate some of the comments from Committee Member Woollett on the homage to the architecture. If she was reviewing correctly, the residence to the south of the Fire Station had totally different architecture and it was nice to have the two buildings playing off of each other. She was opposed to painting the bricks and she appreciated keeping the mid-century look, as most of the Fire Stations in Orange had the same look. There were some in other communities that were of the same design. She had no objections to the project. Chair McCormack stated one of the things he liked was the sweeping roof and the over hang. He asked if the eave line could be expanded to match the lower structure. He pointed out a detail of an area that was cutting into another area and he appreciated that detail. Mr. DeWees stated with earlier schemes they had looked into adding the same detail, however, due to clearance issues and the wash area that could not be added. Chair McCormack stated the gate went back and forth the same way and he asked if 24' was sufficient. Mr. Dibbs stated the area was the wash rack where the apparatus was washed; the unit was backed into that gated area. Chair McCormack asked if they needed atwo-way swinging gate? Mr. DeWees stated it was not needed, it was a flexibility issue. Part of the reason was due to the sloped driveway and it may only open one way. Chair McCormack stated there was a planting area being removed where the wall would go, he had thought a vine in that area could be added, however, in reviewing it they might want to keep it as presented. What was the existing roof composed of? Mr. DeWees stated it was all gravel. Due to seismic guidelines they had to maintain the existing roof material and it would remain all gravel. The gravel roof was going white and they would use the gray color on the new roof. Committee Member Wheeler stated as they were all thinking green, was a consideration given to perhaps adding a photovoltaic array on the existing roof? Mr. DeWees stated they would love to, however, it would not be within their budget. Committee Member Wheeler suggested having a plan for pre-wiring and such for a future addition. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 15, 2009 Page 17 of 34 Mra Dibbs stated it would be something to consider if they obtained an energy efficiency grant. Chair McCormack stated he had worked on many Fire Stations recently and one of the big site things, and it may not be conditioned, but every Fire Station included a drinking fountain, a red light, phone booth, flag and a baby drop area. Mr. Dibbs stated the baby drop area was there and he pointed out where that area was. The drinking fountain was not required. Mr. DeWees stated the red light and emergency phone were required and they would be included. Committee Member Gladson stated it was nice to have a sustainable discussion on how the City was taking the lead on their own projects and the comments to help it down the road were awesome. Mr. DeWees stated there was just so much they could do before it became a LEED project. Chair McCormack stated it set an example of what could be done. Committee Member Woollett stated there was a question on the color scheme. Ms. Le stated there were two options for the treatment of the entry. The Fire Station wanted to paint the brick and it had to do with the look of it and coupled with the rest of the building it gave an aged look. If they were updating the building it made sense to update that as well. Committee Member Woollett stated if they left the brick in its natural state they would paint the door. Mr. DeWees stated they would paint the door to match the apparatus door. He would not want the terrazzo color to be next to the natural brick. They would be adding metal doors. Committee Member Woollett stated he agreed with the natural brick and the colored door. Committee Member Wheeler stated he agreed with maintaining the brick in its natural state. Committee Member Woollett made a motion to recommend approval to the City Council, DRC No. 4415-09, Fire Station No. 4 Remodel, subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report and with the following additional conditions: 1 e To leave the natural brick as existed. And with the following suggestions: 1. Windows to be raised to the eaves. 2. Change the form of the windows on the west side to match the existing on the north side. 3. Extend the eaves to match existing. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 15, 2009 Page 18 of 34 4. Study the possibility of adding photovoltaic array or other energy-saving device for the future. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Bill Cathcart MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 15, 2009 Page 19 of 34 5) DRC No, 4349-08 -SPIRIT & TRUTH WORSHIP CENTER A proposal to add atwo-story, 2,395 square foot addition to an existing church. 4700 East Walnut Avenue Staff Contact: Robert Garcia, 714-744-7231, r a~(a,cityoforange.org DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission Associate Planner, Robert Garcia, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Jon Califf, address on file, stated he would have Mr. Copple explain the intended use of the addition. Applicant, Pastor Tom Copple, address on file, stated the building that they were in was eight years old and had served them very well. They were endeavoring to serve the community and the neighbors. They currently did not have a prayer or meditation room in the present facility and they felt one of the greatest services that they could offer for Police Officers, Firemen, and the El Modena Gang Reform would be prayer to cover the City. They were asking to build the addition for an adequate prayer and meditation space Mr. Califf stated architecturally. they wanted to have something that was compatible in materials and roof form with the existing church and to have a little bit of its own identity. That was the reason for the stone and the offset from the wall plane. They attempted to keep any activity that would be associated with that room away from the rear yard area; although it was fairly densely screened they wanted to be sensitive to the proximity to the neighbors. Pastor Copple stated for a noise consideration, when the building was built they had added three layers of insulation to the building and they would want to have the same with the new addition. Although they would not have amplified music they felt it would be good to add it to the prayer room. Public Comment Reverend Ashur Elkhoury, address on file, stated he was present for another project. He wanted to commend Pastor Copple for thinking of adding a prayer space for security personnel and people that worked for the government and the City. He was a pastor and he understood. He spoke with many Police Officers in his neighborhood and they were asking for these types of spaces where they could go and pray on their own. Chair McCormack opened the item for discussion. Committee Member Woollett stated he had taken a good look at the proposed project and he understood the reason for the space, however, he felt the project was unfair to the neighbors, The building was in a residential area and he felt that the neighbors had a right to the proper separation from the buildings around them and particularly one that was as high as the proposed project. They had obtained a CUP when they initially built and it had appeared that they had done all the right things. It seemed to him in placing the addition in the rear setback was not a City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 15, 2009 Page 20 of 34 good idea. He wondered why the addition could not be added on the other side where there was a very plain wall and it could be graciously placed on the other side of the building where it would not be encroaching on the rights of the neighbors. Chair McCormack stated he had the same comment. Pastor Copple asked if Committee Member Woollett was referring to the front of the church? Committee Member Woollett stated the north side. Committee Member Wheeler stated he was okay with the design. He was a bit confused as it appeared that they would be adding stone to the entry. Mr. Califf stated that was correct. Committee Member Wheeler stated he agreed on the suggestion to move the location of the addition. As another alternative, were they okay on parking and would it be possible to place the addition someplace else without having to remove parking spaces? Mr. Garcia stated the applicant was currently at code required parking with the addition. Reducing parking would be a concern to Staff. Committee Member Wheeler asked if cutting into the existing landscape area would present a problem? Mr. Garcia stated it would be a matter of shifting around some trees. That would need to be analyzed. Applicant, Hollis Best, address on file, stated moving the addition could create a need to move the air conditioning and heating units. He stated when the building was first built, in trying to be a good neighbor, they had shifted things around. Mr. Califf stated he had not wanted to speak for Pastor Tom, however, there was some history with the site and particular neighbors, which he pointed to on a photo. Chair McCormack stated he felt the addition should be moved to the north or he suggested that they leave the building one story and just move the uses. He stated he might be way off in stating that there was an accessibility issue and not being able to provide access to the break room by someone who was handicapped and he felt the applicant might not even be able to build a second story. He had a situation that he worked with where handicapped lifeguards had to have access to lifeguard towers and he imagined it was the same issue in providing equal access. Pastor Copple stated eight years ago they had signed off with ADA because they had a classroom downstairs. Chair McCormack stated if he lived in that house he probably would not want to see that, he loved the use and understood that the break room and office were totally needed. He felt the addition should go up front. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 15, 2009 Page 21 of 34 Committee Member Gladson stated she concurred and the issue got her ire up, the application was a variance application that would go to the Planning Commission and while that was not part of their total purview, in looking at an area that needed to be part of the setback it was a question of how to design it there so it would fit appropriately? She could not go there when there was not a legal finding for a variance, the property was regular, it was topographically flat and there was a lot of space to work with. If there were grounds, such as a physical issue, she would be in support of the project. To allow the proposed project would be giving the applicant privilege, and while she thought the church was awesome and the efforts of what they did was awesome she could not get into the design part of the project due to that obstacle. It was clear there were other alternatives to adding to the church and those alternatives needed to be exhausted and totally looked at. The building was new and she felt they needed to find another solution as she could not support the proposed project. Chair Wheeler asked what the proper procedure would be, to recommend disapproval to the Planning Commission, or would they continue it? Planning Manager, Leslie Aranda Roseberry, stated there were a couple of options. The proposed project could be continued and they could ask the client for a redesign. The recommendation to the Planning Commission could be denial; they could not actually move the project forward unless they gave it a thumbs up or a thumbs down. Chair McCormack stated they had three choices and at this point he would open it up to the applicant to ask if he would be amenable to a continuance to explore other options? Pastor Copple stated without stating a whole lot of stuff he wanted to say about that, he just would not say it, the only other option was that they had no other options. They could have one option which was right there (he pointed to an area on the plans) they had wasted space and when only one neighbor complained and who had moved and left a swimming pool full of thousands of mosquitoes in it, they had moved the entire footprint of the building which left 30 feet of wasted space back there. It was gang territory. Committee Member Gladson stated the space could be a prayer garden or all kinds of things. Pastor Copple stated they would like that, however, they wanted a privacy factor. If they had an option, and he would need to speak with his leadership about that. If he was hearing that the space could be an option that would allow him to take something back to the congregation. Committee Member Woollett stated in obtaining a CUP in a meeting that had been favorable to neighbor's comments and the neighbor prevailed, the Planning Commission or the City Council used their discretion and had the building moved. The DRC was dealing with different issues, thus he asked for the total distance at the setback of the south property linee Chair McCormack stated 30'. Committee Member Woollett stated theoretically they had 10' to place something in and there was a very high wall in a neighborhood with low buildings and there had been a reason for the City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 15, 2009 Page 22 of 34 30' setback. Quite frankly, he knew Jon, who was very competent and the change could actually enhance the other side of the building. Pastor Copple agreed if they were able to do that, he wanted the DRC to understand that they were not increasing the seating where they would require more parking. The room would not be used simultaneously with the auditorium, it was just another room. They needed a dedicated prayer room. Committee Member Gladson stated if she had understood the intent was for the space to function for someone wanting to come in at any point in time to have a time of prayer on their own. Even if they were not a member and there would be value to have the space closer to the front of the property. Committee Member Woollett stated there was also value in having the space away from the main prayer facility. Pastor Copple stated there were instances that after a prayer service there would be an individual that would require further counseling or the need for private prayer. Committee Member Gladson stated she understood that when the initial building was completed they would not have been aware of that future need; there were rules that had value to the residents that were important. Committee Member Wheeler stated they could explore some landscape features that could make the space in the back useable with the addition of a one story roof. Committee Member Woollett made a motion to continue DRC No. 4349-08, Spirit & Truth Worship Center. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Bill Cathcart MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 15, 2009 Page 23 of 34 6) DRC No. 4372-08 - VU & DANG NEW RESIDENCE A proposal to construct a new two-story, 9,695 sq. ft. single-family residence. 6505 Woodview Circle (10502 Woodview Circle) Staff Contact: Sonal Thakur, 714-744-7239, sthakur(a~cityoforange.org DRC Action: Preliminary Review Assistant Planner, Sonal Thakur, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, John Nguyen, address on filed, stated he was available for any questions they had. Public Comment None. Chair McCormack opened the item for discussion. Committee Member Wheeler stated he thought the project had been done very well. He pointed out an area on the plans and stated the shed roof needed to be studied a little bit more as it had not shown up on the side elevations. In looking at the roof plans he suggested that the applicant review the transitions from eave to eave. There appeared to be some disagreement in the floor plans on the chimney and if it was projected, they were minor changes. The only other thing architecturally that bothered him, and it was not the DRC's concern as it was inside, he had built a lot of custom homes and he would not want food carried from the kitchen through two other rooms and down two steps to reach the dining room; that was a lot of work and appeared to be unusual. The applicant might want to study that and he pointed out some areas that they might change on the plans. Committee Member Gladson stated the Orange Park Acres Specific Plan was the bible that they would measure the proposed project against. It appeared to hit most of the major things, aside from the one-story element and the neighborhood was two-story. The only thing that she was curious about was the fencing and there was a note about chain link. Perhaps they would have more details further along and the encouragement would be to do something with more natural materials such as a wood fence. The landscape deficiency question that Staff pointed out, while she felt it was a lovely home and it was huge, she was concerned with the outdoor space and what they proposed for the outdoor areas. The site was restricted by the various grades and the 30' slope from one side to the other and she wondered how they would deal with the compliance for the front yard landscape areas. She was more in the recommendation mode with most of it, as it was asingle-family residence, but she was concerned that the project be in compliances Chair McCormack stated the project was being submitted for preliminary review. Committee Member Woollett asked for more information on the landscape deficiency. Ms. Thakur stated the way the code was written that for the front yard setback, which was 20', there could be no more than 60% of that front yard setback dedicated to hardscape. Staff was City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 15, 2009 Page 24 of 34 looking for clarification, possibly a site plan without all the contours on it, that would show that the requirement was being met. Committee Member Woollett stated with the way the street worked and the way the driveways needed to be built it was difficult. Committee Member Wheeler stated if they interpreted the requirement for just the 20' setback it appeared that the applicant had already met the requirement. Mr. Nguyen stated they would complete the calculations. Chair McCormack stated he agreed with the comments already presented and that the project fit the neighborhood for in-fill. When he looked at the proposed project he noted some huge issues with drainage and a lot of things that would be big issues; he was aware of the retaining walls and a huge driveway which to him were friendly red flags. They were red flags that in designing the applicant wanted to ensure that they had adequate drainage. In building such a large house it would need a similar landscape, a landscape plan that they could flush out. Most of the problems he felt would be on how the water and drainage would be dealt with. Committee Member Wheeler pointed out some areas on the plans to the applicant that would need additional review in regard to drainage and retaining walls. Mr. Nguyen stated they wanted to build the house to fit with the slope. Chair McCormack stated the big issue with the slope and cross slope hitting the garage and imagining a flat surface garage and sloped driveway and where the area would bottom out and how to get a vehicle in there. He felt they were not there yet and the area would need to be reviewed. Mr. Nguyen stated they worked with a civil engineer to arrive at the driveway in reference to the slope and it was not so bad. Committee Member Wheeler stated it would be difficult to review what was being done until the Committee reviewed the proposed contours. Chair McCormack stated the applicant had done a great job. He felt a house such as the one being proposed deserved a landscape that was crafted well. Applicant, Tiffany Dang, address on file, stated as Chair McCormack was a landscape designer they wanted to get his business card. Chair McCormack dismissed the offer. Committee Member Gladson stated on a wonderful custom home they would not want to just stop on the home, but have a whole package. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 15, 2009 Page 25 of 34 Committee Member Wheeler stated before the applicant proceeded any further he suggested that their civil engineer speak with the City. They may want to have a transition zone in the driveway, possibly half the slope and then transition into the full slope. Committee Member Gladson asked Chair McCormack what he thought of a part of the lot that she pointed to on the plans. There was an easement that they had to stay out of. Obviously it would be space that could be utilized in someway and the DRC would not dictate what it was, however, there could be some suggestions for the space. Chair McCormack asked if the entire area was the flood easement? Ms. Dang stated yes it was. Chair McCormack stated typically they could not build on that. Ms. Dang stated they could not put in an enclosed structure but could have a tennis court, pool or anything that was open. Chair McCormack stated as long as it could be removed, as it could be taken at any time. There would be so many uses for that space. Ms. Nguyen stated they had many ideas for the landscape and they would work through everything step by step to present it and get it approved. Landscape could do a lot for the project. Committee Member Gladson stated if she could remember correctly landscape approval would not get triggered with asingle-family residence, however, it was worth presenting for input. Ms. Thakur stated other than the 40% requirement in the front yard, a landscape plan was not required. Chair McCormack stated it was obvious to him, being a landscape architect, that the landscape would be brought up to the same level of the home. There were 100 different ways to do that, 100 different ways to style it, drought tolerant, all grass, or whatever it was. They could do whatever they wanted. His main issue was that Fire Department equipment could get into the sloping driveway if they needed access. Especially in an area that wanted to burn every five years. He would suggest having all the fire prevention items. Mr. Nguyen stated with the slope they did not have many choices, They had raised the elevations Chair McCormack stated he was not aware if a Fuel Modification would be triggered by the City with the project or if the City would require it. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated it would come from City Fire; they would take a look at that and the City was very proactive with the Fuel Modification. With the last fires that hit the City the fires went right up to the Fuel Mod; she had seen photos, and it was quite remarkable. She was very proud of what the Fuel Modifications had done. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 15, 2009 Page 26 of 34 Committee Member Woollett asked if on such a large project would fire sprinklers be required? Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated yes, the requirement was for over 5,000 square feet. Committee Member Woollett stated the project was very well done and the design looked Asian to him, it looked great to him. Committee Member Wheeler stated he agreed. It was how the front entry form stepped down on the sides. Committee Member Woollett stated it was appropriate. Committee Member Gladson stated she had thought Staff wanted DRC input on the garage doors. Ms. Thakur stated not on the garage doors, but more of the placement of the three-car garage in relationship to the slope of the driveway. Committee Member Wheeler stated he felt they could not state much until they review a final grading plan with the proposed contours on it. There were profiles on the plans that would need to be adjusted. Chair McCormack asked if the project would be returning to the DRC. Ms. Thakur stated yes it would, the project was being presented for preliminary review and then would return to the DRC. Chair McCormack stated in bringing green issues into projects, he was not certain about his idea, and the two architects might disagree with him. He always had this passion for moving the eaves out more to shadow the windows. He thought the idea of pushing the windows up was just a fabulous idea. He was not conditioning anything but with so much roof space having the eaves come out it could provide more shade. Committee Member Wheeler stated it would change the design a lot and pushing the windows up worked fine on a project such as the Fire Station, but where there needed to be sill heights for bedrooms and other situations pushing the head up would only add more glass. It was probably less of a benefit on the proposed project. He suggested lots of insulation and insulated glass, there could be accommodations for future solar collectors of some sort. Chair McCormack asked if it was an issue to have the chimney below the roof? Mr. Nguyen stated it was 10' and in the back. Committee Member Wheeler stated it was 10', it was okay. Chair McCormack stated a grading plan and landscape plan went hand-in-hand; otherwise, they would run into conflicts, from a professional point of view. A different landscape concept would City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 15, 2009 Page 27 of 34 create a different grading concept. Coming into the property you would not want to bottom out and that in itself was an issue. Committee Member Wheeler stated he had a fear that when the grading plan was completed the applicant might run into some issue they had not expected as it was a very steep site. Chair McCormack stated they would need stepping areas and to run sections to get to where they were at. Mr. Nguyen asked for the next presentation the DRC would want to see the final grading plan? Committee Member Wheeler stated generally they would not ask for that but with a project with so many contours they would want to review that. Committee Member Woollett stated that would eliminate running into a situation that would require changes later on and it would require the applicant returning. Mr. Nguyen asked about a landscape plan? Ms. Thakur stated it was not required, but the Chair was recommending that it would be helpful to have something preliminary to obtain comments. Chair McCormack stated it would be a smart thing to do. The landscape plan was not driven by the grading plan, but in their situation with a grade issue they would need to get from point A to point B. Ms. Dang asked if the style was fine? The Committee agreed it was fine. Committee Member Wheeler stated the only thing that worried him was that it was atwo-story home in an area with lots of two-story homes, but when looked at from another side it had the appearance of a three-story home. Mr. Nguyen explained where it worked into the slope of the site. The project was presented for preliminary review; no motion was necessary. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 15, 2009 Page 28 of 34 7) DRC No. 4407-09 -VILLA TORTUGA-BELTRAN RESIDENCE A proposal to demolish an existing 1,538 square foot single-family house and construct a new 2,543 square foot single-family detached residence. 453 South Hewes Street Staff Contact: Doris Nguyen, 714-744-7223, dn~uyen(c~cit o~nge.org DRC Action: Final Determination Associate Planner, Doris Nguyen, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Reverend Ashur David Elkhoury, address on file, stated for clarification when Staff mentioned the actual square footage of the house had that included the garage? Ms. Nguyen stated yes, it included the garage. Rev. Elkhoury stated the actual habitable area was under 2,100 square feet and he wanted to be clear on that. Based on the comments that were made when Staff contacted his office, they made changes on the current site plan. Ms. Nguyen asked if what he was presenting was different than what had been previously submitted? Rev. Elkhoury stated they had made revisions to reflect less Palm trees as Staff had requested. The current site plan was very similar to what the DRC had in their drawings. They had taken off a few Palm trees according to Staff's comments. What they had done was a bit more towards the construction documents, they had added a little bit more to the elevation of the site, Tim could understand a little bit better. He created a site section to review. In a nutshell between the very high point of the site and the face of the walk was about a 59" drop, the house was at a current elevation of about 12" above the sidewalk. To minimize excavation they raised it another 8" and sloped the driveway slightly higher to minimize the cut and fill. What they had was a retaining wall that they were calling a planter. It was 3' tops from that elevation. They carried the planter wall continuously across and then he pointed out an area that dropped 18" from the finished surface. That would leave areas for plantings. Committee Member Woollett stated he had not noticed any Ficas trees. Rev. Elkhoury stated there were several trees at the back of the lot and he had proposed not to remove those. Committee Member Woollett asked how far down would they need to dig to get all of the roots out? Rev. Elkhoury stated it had ripped the foundation of the house. Chair McCormack stated it appeared that the home had been located incorrectly. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 15, 2009 Page 29 of 34 Ms. Nguyen stated because the street was widened and the original front of the house was cut off. Rev. Elkhoury stated it was within inches of the back of the right-of--way. They would move it back to the current City standards. The neighbors on the right and left were closer than that. When he had walked in to do his initial survey it was pretty scary and the existing property had to go. Committee Member Woollett stated what he saw was very good. He had driven around the back of the property and his only concern; Chair McCormack interrupted Committee Member Woollett, stating he "jumped the gun". Committee Member Woollett asked if the Chair wanted to ask for Public Comment? Chair McCormack stated only if the applicant was done. Rev, Elkhoury stated the main thing was to bring an updated set, with some of the comments Staff had made. If it was okay with them he would want to move forward. They tried to do everything possible to make sure the house fit the neighborhood. The stucco proposed was smooth stucco which was very expensive and very beautiful in matching the Spanish architecture. Committee Member Gladson asked if it was smooth and hand troweled? Rev. Elkhoury stated it took about three weeks to work it in, to apply the three coats in there. It was far more expensive than any stucco but it was the beauty of the architecture. Committee Member Wheeler stated everything came back some time and even Spanish Lace would be in style again. Rev. Elkhoury stated there was sensitivity in dealing with Spanish Lace especially when dealing with adobe style. One of the things he looked at in designing the home was that his head went up and he looked at the homes above. It was amazing what they had for a view. He was interested in bringing in a new vision to the area and it was a phenomenal way of beautifying Hewes Street along that portion of the parkway. There was a beautiful park across the street. Public Comment None. Chair McCormack opened the item for discussion. Committee Member Woollett stated he was attempting to get a sense of how the home would be viewed from up the hill. Rev. Elkhoury stated he attempted to do that with all his projects and this home was one of the smaller projects they dealt with, normally they dealt with much larger homes. They attempted to break up the architecture and create vistas of opportunity when going from one corner to the next City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 15, 2009 Page 30 of 34 corner and just not to have plain corners all across. There were original trees on site and from his best recollection they were fully matured and that would be the primary vista. There would be lawns, possibly colored concrete and rose bushes and plants that went to the front. He was attempting to blend in the landscaping with the house that would eventually mature and he reassured them of one thing that the neighbors would be blessed with what they would view. Committee Member Wheeler stated the rear elevation had been paid attention to more than most designs. Rev. Elkhoury stated he liked to make his project talk to each other internally and externally. They had taken, with the budget they were working with, the elevations and added plant shelves, trim, etc., and added brick to the front and added some elements to the facade with what might happen with the walk into the home. They wanted to blend in the exterior with the interior. Committee Member Gladson pointed out a section of the plan that would be viewed from up on the hill and possibly they could study that to get a feel for what would be viewed. Rev. Elkhoury stated that section was drawn just to represent points of elevation from the back up walk, to the house and to the yard. That was where the 3' planter wall would be and it was drawn to get a feel for the massing and to show where the original perimeter walls would be. There was a difference of approximately 18" plus or minus and they were 8" higher than the original pad. It was relatively flat and dropped down. Committee Member Woollett asked if the rear wall acted as a retaining wall? Rev, Elkhoury stated he had not thought that as the grade was approximately 1' above the footing and it was just the fence wall between neighbors. Committee Member Wheeler stated it was called out on the plans as a retaining wall. Rev. Elkhoury stated yes they had. Committee Member Woollett stated he was not able to tell what the neighbors next door would see, if they were higher. Rev. Elkhoury stated they were way up there. There was a Gazebo next to the wall and they could not see directly across. Their view in the future would be much better than what was there now. Committee Member Wheeler commented on the colored rendering. Rev. Elkhoury stated his client decided to draw that. Committee Member Wheeler stated with such small windows he suggested not having so much contrast between the trim and the body of the building and to make it more subtle. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 15, 2009 Page 31 of 34 Rev. Elkhoury stated because of the window size he had not wanted the trim to be too small, too shallow, as it would fade away; they wanted to deliberately celebrate the trim and not have it match the band of fascia, they were looking at a 4" band. Committee Member Wheeler stated he was not talking about the band he was talking about the color. Rev. Elkhoury stated again my client colored it. It would be a lighter color. Applicant, Donati Beltran, address on file, stated it would be a wood color. Rev. Elkhoury stated it would be a lighter brown. Committee Member Wheeler stated he would give them his standard feng shui warning. They would have an unlucky house because of the way the stairs faced the front door. Rev. Elkhoury stated it was amazing how they would review things differently from different cultures. Committee Member Wheeler stated there was a development years ago in Villa Park with four floor plans and one had the stairs facing the front door and it was the one that took the longest to sell. Rev. Elkhoury stated he had promised his client he would hang a blessing prayer on her front doore Ms. Beltran stated she would be there all of her life. Committee Member Gladson asked where the name of the home had come from, Villa Tortuga? Ms. Beltran stated she lived in Acapulco, and she had a beach home there. In that area all the homes had names and her home was named Villa Tortuga and she wanted to bring that name to her new home. Committee Member Gladson asked if there were pot shelves below the windows and if they were foam? Rev. Elkhoury stated there were pot shelves and they would be constructed out of wood. There would be wood trim that would support them. Committee Member Gladson stated they appeared to be lost on the design. Rev. Elkhoury stated with the park setting across the street they wanted to reflect the plantings on the windows and to add more greenery to the facade. Committee Member Gladson stated the Rubber tree ruined everything and the El Modena area had a number of historic structures and it was a shame when one was lost. The home had lost its City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 15, 2009 Page 32 of 34 livability and she asked if the applicant was open if they conditioned the project to salvage some pieces of the home, there could be recyclable pieces that would be of interest to someone. Committee Member Wheeler stated there could be photo documentation of the home. Chair McCormack stated there could be photo documentation with the possibility of having a piece of the home archived at the library. Ms. Beltran stated the home was really creepy inside, there were rats and it was terrible. Rev. Elkhoury stated there were some magnificent pieces that were not touched by water damage such as the corner trim. There had been parts of the home that had been added onto; the best spots that could be taken from were from the north elevation of the home. Committee Member Gladson stated she was thinking from a green aspect rather than to have all the parts end up in a landfill. Rev. Elkhoury stated they would be happy to apply for that where the home could be recycled. Chair McCormack asked for clarification on the north elevation as he had always been told that the north elevation should have the most glazing on it for light. Rev. Elkhoury stated generally they would maximize that, however, with the proposed project the neighbor on the north was not a very slightly property and it would not be an elevation where they would want to open up glazing. They had added solar tubes on the roof to bring in lighting. Committee Member Wheeler stated he would maximize the glazing on the south side. Rev. Elkhoury stated they were bringing in natural lighting near the stairwell. They were attempting to add additional areas for natural light. He pointed out areas on the plans that would include lighting. Chair McCormack stated he had no problem with the landscape plan, there was some eclecticism in the neighborhood in regard to landscape, and he would not care if they put in eight more species of Palms. In walking the neighborhood it had a flavor and there were gardens with a lot of variety and he felt there was not a landscape theme that they needed. Rev. Elkhoury stated his client loved plants and wanted more plants rather than less. There would be more plants added to the yard. Chair McCormack suggested simplifying the ground plane and suggested not adding turf to an area on the plans that would require mowing around Palm trees and adding some ground cover and moving the trees around and away from the turf areas. Ms. Beltran stated the neighbor had a terrible house and she wanted to add a lot of trees to screen the other houses. She thought of adding Cypress trees. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 15, 2009 Page 33 of 34 Rev. Elkhoury stated the thought was to add some junipers to add a nice backdrop to the architecture and add shading from the west side. Chair McCormack suggested adding deciduous trees on the south and west and evergreen trees on the north and to group the trees in a thoughtful grouping and he pointed out areas on the plans that he suggested for turf areas. Committee Member Wheeler asked what Chair McCormack thought about Vinca for a ground cover? Chair McCormack stated he loved Vinca, and there were two types: Vinca major and Vinca minor. The plants looked liked siblings almost the same; one was smaller and took shade and one larger that took sun. Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve DRC No.4407-09, Villa Tortuga, subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report and with the following suggestion: 1. Salvage historic materials and prepare a photo documentation of the property. Mr. Elkhoury stated Ms. Beltran would need to come into the City office and speak to either Tim or Adrienne and let them know when the home would be demoed. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated they would need to go through the project planner. Mr. Elkhoury stated they could set up a date and remove whatever they liked. Committee Member Gladson stated there were resources for that and Staff could point the applicant to those resources. SECOND: Joe Woollett AYES: Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Bill Cathcart MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 15, 2009 Page 34 of 34 ADJOURNMENT: Committee Member Gladson made a motion to adjourn to the next regular scheduled meeting on May 6, 2009 at 5:00 p.m. The meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m. SECOND: Tim McCormack AYES: Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES:None ABSTAIN:None ABSENT:Bill Cathcart MOTION CARRIED.