Loading...
04-18-2007 DRC MinutesCITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE FINAL MINUTES 18 Apri12007 Committee Members Present: Bill Cathcart Donnie DeWees Craig Wheeler Joe Woollett Staff in Attendance: Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager Robert Garcia, Associate Planner Doris Nguyen, Associate Planner Mari Burke, Recording Secretary Committee Member Absent: Jon Califf Administrative Session - 5:00 P.M. The Committee met for an administrative session beginning at 5:00 p.m. The meeting adjourned at approximately 6:32 p.m. Regular Session - 5:30 P.M. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 18 Apri12007 Page 2 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. REVIEW OF MINUTES: MARCH 21, 2007 Committee Member Woollett made a motion to approve the minutes of the March 21, 2007 meeting with revisions as noted. SECOND: Bill Cathcart AYES: Bill Cathcart, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: Donnie DeWees (due to absenteeism) ABSENT: Jon Califf MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT ITEMS: All matters that are announced as Consent Items are considered to be routine by the Design Review Committee and will be enacted on 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 Woollett made a motion to approve the following item by consent, subject to the recommendations in the Staff Report. 2. DRC No. 4183-07 - TESCO MARKETS A proposal for improvements to a grocery store. 146 S. Main Street Staff Contact: Robert Garcia, (714) 744-7231, rgarcia@cityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination SECOND: Donnie DeWees AYES: Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Jon Califf MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 18 April 2007 Page 3 1. DRC No. 4166-06 - CHENEY ADDITION A proposal to expand the first floor of an existing single-family residence and to add a new second story. 382 N. Maplewood Street Staff Contact: Robert Garcia, (714) 744-7231, rgarcia@cityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination Associate Planner Robert Garcia provided a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. The architect Phil Bennett stated that when the project first started, the owners had a different architect. Since he became the architect of record, significant revisions were made to reduce the bulk and mass of the project. No public comment was provided on this item. Chair Wheeler offered the following comments: 1) By his calculation, the FAR of the finished project would be approximately 0.53. Although this is less than the allowable of 0.60 for an R-I-6 zone property, it would seem to be very high for the neighborhood. Also, this does not include the covered areas such as the breezeway and the second floor cantilever. As mentioned in the Staff Report, this large mass has been very skillfully broken up; however, since this would seem to be the only two-story home on the street, it still seems very large. Mr. Bennett responded that he thought there was another two-story home on the street; it is just that the second story is located in the back portion of the lot. 2) Item 3. in the Staff Report regarding the Code requirement to maintain an unobstructed minimum interior dimension of 10'x20' per car space needs to be addressed. Mr. Bennett responded that was not a problem, they just have to reduce it by 8" to get the 20' clearance. 3) He was concerned about what the space is just to the west of the new family room. He stated he thought it looked an awfullot like a kitchen. Mr. Bennett responded that it was in the original plan and part of the reason for doing it was the owners Mother is going to be moving in with them and since they are not allowed to put in a full kitchen they are putting in a wet bar. Chair Wheeler asked if they thought about doing an accessory second unit for her. Mr. Bennett responded that had thought about it but they didn't want to separate it from the structure itself as they want her to still be part of the family unit itself. Ms. Roseberry interjected that it wouldn't have to be separated, it can still be attached to the main unit, it just can't be more than 640 sq. ft. with appropriate parking provided. Mr. Bennett responded that the parking requirement would create another issue so they felt this City of Orange Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 18 April 2007 Page 4 would be the best solution. Chair Wheeler stated that what concerned him was that it looks a lot like a duplex and since it is R-1 zoned someone in the fiiture might turn it into one and then they would be very short on parking and it would be a detriment to the neighborhood. 4) The east elevation shows a window with shutters in what is labeled on the 2°`~ floor plan as bath no. 1. This window does not appear to be shown on the floor plan. Mr. Bennett responded he mislabeled the window and had modified the location; the correct location was pointed to on the drawings for the Committee. Chair Wheeler suggested the location might be a problem for the lavatory and suggested another location. Mr. Bennett stated there is another option. This option involves moving the stair and would result in changing the upstairs. This would cause the window to be centered in the front. (A second set of plans with this change was shown to the Committee.) The second set of plans also changes the area that was cantilevered for the second floor would be lost so the second floor master bedroom would be 8-1/2' from the side property line. Chair Wheeler asked Mr. Bennett if he knew what the privacy issues would be with the neighbors with this change. Mr. Bennett responded they have eliminated all windows except one (the location of that window was pinpointed on the drawings for the Committee). 5) The distance from the edge of the front second floor eave to the existing chimney scales out to be about 9'4" on the drawing. Please check to be sure that this will actually be at least 10' as required and as dimensioned on the south elevation as otherwise the chimney would have to be raised. 6) The front elevation seems to show the new garage lower than the existing home. Mr. Bennett responded that he did change it and that it would be stepped up because they are continuing the second floor plate line over so there is a consistent eave all the way around. (The location where the eave would be was pinpointed on the drawing for the Committee.) 7) The front elevation shows a railing by the entry to the existing home that is quite a bit different than the existing railing on the home. He likes what is there now as it is very appropriate to the period. Mr. Bennett responded he did not intend to change it, it would be the existing one. 8) Would an adjustment be required to permit the north edge of the new construction to match the 4'6" setback of the existing home rather than be increased to the normal 5'0" setback? Mr. Bennett responded that he had gone over it with Mr. Garcia earlier and the survey shows the front portion is 5' and as you get towards the back it reduces to 4'6". He will be having it re- surveyed and if they have to pull it in 6" they will Mr. Garcia interjected that he would otherwise do an Administrative Adjustment. 9) His biggest concern is the backup space from the new garage to the existing home. The drawing calls out for 28'0" from the garage to the house but it does not take into consideration the existing stoop and steps at the back door. Mr. Bennett responded that the stoop exists and there is about 17'-18' so they are trying to make the best out of what they can. Chair Wheeler stated the existing is not compliant and this one would need to be. Although he wasn't sure if the City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 18 April 2007 Page 5 Residential Driveway Guidelines had ever been adopted he stated that according to them the requirement is they would need to have 30'0" from the stoop. Ms. Roseberry interjected they had never been adopted but it was something Community Development needed to look into. Mr. Bennett asked for clarification on the requirement, which was provided by Chair Wheeler. Mr. Bennett stated that although it wouldn't be easy he thought the 28'0" was sufficient space. Other options were explored which included pushing the garage back further and also reducing the size of the workshop. Chair Wheeler stated that if the Guidelines he referred to are not official he didn't know if the 30'0" would be a requirement or not. Mr. Bennett asked who would make the final determination. Ms. Roseberry responded that they would have to have 25'0" free and clear fora 90 degree backup. Committee Member Woollett stated he was concerned there was all concrete and no planting space along the south wall. Mr. Bennett responded that they could get some planting space along either side of the stoop if they moved the building back to get the 25'0" clear. (The specific area was pinpointed on the drawing for the Committee.) Chair Wheeler asked what the living area on the second floor would be with the proposed changes. Mr. Bennett responded it would increase to about 968 sq. ft. (an increase of about 100 sq. ft). As it gets closer to the side yard setback modifications would be made as appropriate. Chair Wheeler asked if there was anything they could do to make it less likely to someday be a duplex. Mr. Bennett responded that he could take the plan of any house and in 10 minutes convert it to a duplex. He confirmed that it was not the owner's intention and they will be living in the house. Chair Wheeler suggested a continuance so the applicant could come back with the changes for the Committee to review. Mr. Bennett asked if there was a possibility of getting Staff to review the changes. Committee Member Woollett asked Mr. Garcia how he felt about making the evaluations. Mr. Garcia responded that with the direction from the Committee as it relates to the backup space, he was confident he understood the other changes suggested. Mr. Bennett asked if the garage workshop area would be included in the FAR. Several members of the Committee responded affirmatively. Committee Member Woollett made a motion to approve DRC No. 4166-06 subject to the recommendations in the Staff Report and four additional conditions: 1) Adjustments would be made in the size of the stoop and/or the position of the garage to provide a minimum 25' between the edge of the stoop and the face of the garage. 2) A 2' wide planter area is provided north of the stoop and along the south wall adjacent to the stairway. 3) The reference drawings shall be those dated 4-18-07 as presented at the DRC meeting. 4) All new landscaping, including the 2' planter, shall have an automatic irrigation system. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 18 Apri12007 Page 6 SECOND: Donnie DeWees AYES: Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Jon Califf MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 18 April 2007 Page 7 2. DRC No. 4183-07 - TESCO MARKETS A proposal for improvements to a grocery store. 146 S. Main Street Staff Contact: Robert Garcia, (714) 744-7231, rgarcia@cityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination This item was approved by consent. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 18 Apri12007 Page 8 3. DRC No. 4199-07 CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY-MUDRA SCULPTURE A proposal to add a sculpture in front of the Partridge Dance Center. 190 N. Cypress St. Staff Contact: Doris Nguyen, (714) 744-7223, dnguyen@cityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination Committee Member Cathcart recused himself. Associate Planner Doris Nguyen provided a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. The applicant stated that roses are a relatively effective way of preventing vandalism. Public comment was provided as follows: Janet Crenshaw, OTPA stated she liked it. Chair Wheeler asked why the Committee was reviewing this sculpture, as he didn't want to be in a position of evaluating art and suggesting that it should be something other than what is proposed. Furthermore, there are several other sculpture pieces already on the campus. Mr. Durham responded that it was his understanding it was a requirement when it faces the community versus being placed internally on campus. Committee Member Woollett asked if they had given any thought to situating the bench differently when this sculpture is in place. Mr. Olson responded there would be a new Chapman bench with the logo (placement was shown on the drawings to the Committee). Committee Member Woollett made a motion to approve DRC No. 4199-07 subject to the conditions in the Staff Report. SECOND:Donnie DeWees AYES:Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES:None ABSTAIN:None RECUSED:Bill Cathcart ABSENT:Jon Califf MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 18 April 2007 Page 9 4. DRC No. 4200-07 - CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY-RAM'S SKULL SCULPTURE A proposal to add a sculpture in the Palm Grove of Memorial Hall. 333 N. Glassell Street Staff Contact: Doris Nguyen, (714) 744-7223, dnguyen@cityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination Committee Member DeWees recused himself. Committee Member Woollett asked if this was a piece held in possession for some time. Mr. Olson responded affirmatively. Associate Planner Doris Nguyen provided a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Ms. Nguyen pointed out that there was a change to the Staff Report. The walkway leading up to the sculpture would be DG instead of concrete. Mr. Durham explained the lighting would be a ringed system that is attached to the base and will shine up. Once you get to the pad there would be campus standard up lighting currently used on most art pieces. Committee Member Woollett asked if the lighting had been tested on this particular sculpture. Mr. Durham and Mr. Olson responded it had been used on other sculptures around campus and it is one that you could focus the beam and aim it. Committee Member Woollett stated his concern is the appearance of the sculpture changes a lot depending on where the light is coming from and the intensity of the light in terms of the sharpness of the shadows, etc. He added that they needed to be really careful as there might be some strange forms emerging as a result of the lighting. Mr. Olson responded that the lighting was placed as shown in order to get the length of the sculpture as it narrows in several areas. Mr. Durham added that they could and should get the inputs from members of the faculty as well as from the art curator. Mr. Durham thanked Committee Member Woollett for his input and stated his concerns were well noted. Public comment was provided as follows: Janet Crenshaw, OTPA stated she would not turn the lights on at all; however, she is not an art expert and therefore had no official comment. Chair Wheeler asked why there was no seating area. Mr. Durham responded the pedestal becomes its own seat wall. Mr. Olson added that the path around it was made a little wider so guests could stand around it. Chair Wheeler asked if they would consider putting some benches near it and perhaps some floral enhancements. Committee Member Cathcart stated he thought any floral additions would detract, as sculpture pieces should stand on their own. Committee Member Woollett made a motion to approve DRC No. 4200-07 subject to the conditions in the Staff Report. City of Orange Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 18 April 2007 Page 10 SECOND: Bill Cathcart AYES: Bill Cathcart, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None RECUSED: Donnie DeWees ABSENT: Jon Califf MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 18 Apri12007 Page 11 5. DRC No. 4201-07 - CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY-CENTRAL QUAD A proposal to redevelop the existing Central Quad. One University Drive, in front of the Leather@ Library Staff Contact: Doris Nguyen, (714) 744-7223, dnguyen@cityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination Committee Member DeWees recused himself. Associate Planner Doris Nguyen provided a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Committee Member Woollett stated he would like to hear the story and the philosophy. Mr. Olson stated: As part of the master plan process there is a requirement for a large gathering area on campus. It was mainly walkways and there wasn't really a central gathering space. The space was meant to accommodate 800-1500 people with a large water feature in the center sculpture element included). They worked with the student body and they had a large impact on some of the design. The student body wanted to be able to lay out on the turf which is somewhat in place today and was retained and added informal turf berms that replicate what is there today. An amphitheatre was worked in and could be used for outdoor classrooms or concerts. The podium plaza is a place where the President could speak to a large group. The water feature is more of a sculptural element. The concept is that this is a forum of learning. All of the elements (even the seating) are designed to be a strata out of the earth as though it had risen out of the ground. Each of the four large plinths orient themselves to certain pieces of the campus: the intellectual at the Leatherby Library, the physical at the Sports Center, the spiritual at the Chapel and the social at Beckman Hall. The water feature will have animation so the jets can rise and fall at certain times. There will be music and lighting to go along with it. There will be a misting system. A lot of the same plant material will be retained. Trees have been protected in place; some have been boxed and will be reused. A signature Quad tree which is part of the Master Plan will be used. A specimen Oak tree will be used. The student body and university seem to be very receptive to the concept. Public comment was provided as follows: Janet Crenshaw, OTPA stated it looked comfortable to her. Committee Member Woollett stated that it appears that the pedestrians will be able to see in from the perimeter and he contrasted it to the viewpoints existent today. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 18 April 2007 Page 12 Mr. Olson responded that the berms existing today are much larger and what they are trying to do is have a visual corridor from all angles coming in and pedestrian traffic. They are also creating perimeter seating opportunities so people could mix, sit across from each other or on the seat walls (all of these areas were pinpointed on the drawings). Committee Member Woollett asked how deep is the water at the edge? Mr. Olson responded it is very shallow, just inches. It stops on the slope. The basin is 36' in diameter and the water never gets deeper than 17". There are four plinths plus smaller broken pieces that hide some of the lighting and jets. There is also broken rubble (about 4" in size) throughout the water body. Committee Member Woollett stated that the reason he asked this was he had seen a design in Portland that was shallow at the edge and became an invitation for people to go in and wade. In this case if it wasn't the intent to offer the same invitation for students, he wanted to know what would be done to mitigate against it. Mr. Olson responded they have strategically located some of the fallen pieces so there are a lot of obstacles and they have also located a lot of broken rubble. This would make it not very comfortable on bare feet. Mr. Durham interjected they are aware there will still be some students that do go in on a hot day. Mr. Durham stated the student body was very concerned there would be mostly hardscape and that the greenery would be gone from the central plaza. They therefore made sure that there is not one less square foot of green grass. Chair Wheeler stated he was glad to see they were bring back some of the Jacarandas. Mr. Durham stated they saved the (4) healthiest ones. Other trees that will be retained were pointed out on the drawings for the Committee. Chair Wheeler asked if there were lighting any trees. Mr. Olson responded that the specimen oak would be lit. Committee Member Woollett asked if there would be a speech amplification system with microphones on the podium. Mr. Olson responded affirmatively and he pinpointed on the drawings where the control box would be located. Chair Wheeler made a motion to approve DRC No. 4201-07 subject to the conditions in the Staff Report and two additional: 1) Add the City provided irrigation and landscaping inspection notes to the landscape plans. 2) Submit the landscape and irrigation plans to the City for final approval. SECOND:Joe Woollett AYES:Bill Cathcart, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES:None ABSTAIN:None RECUSED:Donnie DeWees ABSENT:Jon Califf MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 18 Apri12007 Page 13 Chair Wheeler made a motion to adjourn to the next regular meeting on Wednesday, May 2, 2007. SECOND: Joe Woollett AYES: Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Jon Califf MOTION CARRIED.