Loading...
07-05-2006 DRC MinutesCITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES -FINAL July 5, 2006 Committee Members Present: Jon Califf Bill Cathcart Craig Wheeler Joe Woollett Committee Members Absent: Donnie DeWees Staff in Attendance: Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager Christopher Carnes, Senior Planner Anne Fox, Contract Staff Planner Sona1 Thakur, Assistant Planner Howard Morris, Senior Landscape Coordinator Mari Burke, Recording Secretary Administrative Session - 5:00 P.M. The Committee met for an administrative session beginning at 5:00 p.m. The meeting adjourned at approximately 8:45 p.m. Regular Session - 5:30 P.M. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 5, 2006 Page 2 1. DRC No. 3981-OS - KIZZIAR RESIDENCE The applicant is requesting that the Design Review Committee evaluate a replacement structure for a contributing accessory structure (garage) that was demolished without permits. The applicant is also proposing a 640 sq. ft. accessory second housing unit. 481 South Center Street Staff Contact: Dan Ryan, (714) 744-7224, dryan(a,cityoforange.org Item was originally a Design Review Committee recommendation to the Planning Commission from the Design Review Committee Meeting of October 5, 2005 DRC Action: Final Determination Planning Manager Leslie Aranda Roseberry, provided a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. The applicant advised he no longer owns the property and will not be building the one story accessory second housing unit. Public input was provided as follows: Jeff Frankel, OTPA, asked if there were any changes made to the plans originally submitted. Committee Member Wheeler responded, "It appears they were last revised in October 2005." Mr. Frankel advised their position on this matter would be to adhere to the recommendations the Design Review Committee had made at the previous meeting that included removal of the fascia on the garage. Mr. Frankel also expressed some confusion with the environmental determination and the project not going to the Planning Commission. He asked if Infill projects typically go to the Planning Commission? Ms. Roseberry provided clarification as to CEQA ineligibility and responded that the project is not going to the Planning Commission because CEQA no longer applies. Further Ms. Roseberry stated that accessory second units do not routinely go to the Planning Commission; they are brought to the Design Review Committee for approval. Mr. Frankel asked what penalties have been assessed? Ms. Roseberry responded this is being worked out with the applicant. Mr. Frankel asked how land use issues were addressed i.e. parking and setbacks if the project is not going to the Planning Commission. Ms. Roseberry responded these would be addressed at the Design Review Committee level with reports on Standards provided by Staff. Janet Crenshaw, OTPA, asked for confirmation that the accessory unit would not be built. Chair Califf responded that was correct, per the applicant's input; however, that is not what is represented on the drawings provided. Ms. Crenshaw urged the Design Review Committee to maintain the requirement to remove the fascia around the garage. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 5, 2006 Page 3 Committee Member Woollett stated Mr. Frankel referred to this as an Infill project and he did not agree it was an Infill project. Ms. Roseberry concurred with Committee Member Woollett's statement. Discussion revolved around the appropriate action to be taken regarding the proposed accessory second housing unit portion of the project. Ms. Roseberry interjected the garage would still have to be considered and the approval could relate only to the garage; however, the City would feel more comfortable if there was a formal withdrawal of the portion of the application relating to the proposed accessory second housing unit. The other option presented by Ms. Roseberry was for the Design Review Committee to approve the application as submitted, which would give the new owners the right to build the accessory unit if they desired. Committee Member Woollett asked the applicant if he was authorized to engage in the application of the second unit. Ms. Roseberry interjected that the City doesn't have anything in writing that indicates a change of ownership. Committee Member Woollett asked if it was determined later that the ownership had changed and the new owner had not given authorization for the application regarding the second unit to the applicant present, would the approval for the second unit be null and void? Ms. Roseberry responded this was a legal question she couldn't answer. Committee Member Wheeler asked if the approval for the project could be conditioned that all references to the accessory second unit have to be removed from the drawings before they are submitted for a building permit. Chair Califf asked the applicant if the lot consolidation had been completed. The applicant responded affirmatively. Chair Califf stated since there are two separate units there would be two separate permits. Committee Member Wheeler suggested that it would be a good idea to clarify the scope of work that is to be performed on the existing replacement garage. He asked "Is it going to be torn down and rebuilt entirely, or is only the roof going to be removed and rebuilt so as to incorporate the 2x4 exposed rafters, or will the existing roof rafters be cut back at the eaves and new 2x4 outlookers scabbed on?" The applicant responded they would cut back the existing rafter tails to 2x4's that are exposed and they would not be scabbed as they would only take off the bottom 2". Committee Member Wheeler asked if the spacing was 24"? The applicant responded he thought it was 16". Committee Member Wheeler cautioned that once they rip this down they could get into a structural problem with the notch that reduces the strength of the member greatly and he stressed this would need to be checked. Committee Member Wheeler indicated it should be made clear that the existing door and window trim on the garage is to be removed and replaced with new trim in the manner shown on the drawings. The applicant acknowledged they would do this. Committee Member Wheeler indicated the garage framing plan on Sheet AS conflicts with the garage elevations on the same sheet. Further, the framing plan should show the 2x4 outlookers as called out on the elevations. The framing plan should not call out for a fascia on the eaves as that conflicts with the exposed rafter tails shown on the elevations. The applicant responded the fascia would be removed. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 5, 2006 Page 4 Committee Member Wheeler stated that Detail 2 on Sheet A4 does not show how the projecting bracket beam is to be supported. This will need to be a structural cantilever in order to support the barge board which in turn supports the roof sheathing. Chair Califf interjected that since the barge is already there it is likely to be supported by flat 2x4 outlookers as it is only decorative on the garage. On the accessory second unit it would have to be structural. The applicant responded it does have the 2x4 now and he didn't know if he was supposed to remove them. He stated they would have them match how they are done on the house. Committee Member Wheeler stated that would probably be an improvement. Chair Califf advised the applicant they will need to have a note on the plans that an automatic irrigation system will be required if they do new landscaping. Chair Califf asked the applicant what he requested -did he want the Design Review Committee to consider the accessory second unit or not? The applicant responded that it took a long time to get through the process and when he sold the home he was supposed to take care of just the Design Review Committee requirements for the garage; there were no stipulations made regarding the accessory second unit. Chair Califf asked if there was any upside to the applicant in the sales transaction for completing the process for the accessory second unit. The applicant responded no, there would be nothing positive to be gained for him. Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve Design Review Committee No. 3981-OS with the following conditions: 1) This approval does not pertain to the accessory second unit. This approval relates only to the garage structure. If someone wants to build the accessory second unit, the project should be resubmitted. 2) The drawings should be clarified to indicate the existing eave framing is going to be cut back (if structurally possible) to 2x4 framing. 3) It should be made clear on the drawings that the existing door and window trim on the garage is to be removed and replaced with new trim as shown on the drawings. 4) The garage framing plan on Sheet AS should be corrected to reflect there is not going to be new fascia board and the exposed rafters are to be seen. 5) If there is going to be a new landscape plan they must provide an automatic irrigation system and it should be noted on the plans. 6) The vents on the garage should be the same as the vents on the existing house. SECOND: Joe Woollett AYES: Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Donnie DeWees MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 5, 2006 Page 5 2. DRC No. 4057-OS - FRANZ RESIDENCE A proposal to construct a new front porch and a 162 sq. ft. addition to the rear portion ofanon-contributing single-family residence. 615 East Washington Avenue (located within the Old Towne Orange District)Staff Contact: Sonal Thakur, (714) 744-7239, sthakur(a~cit oforan e orbDRCAction: Final Determination Chair Califf recused himself. Assistant Planner Sonal Thakur provided a project overview during which she noted thataccordingtoOldTowneDesignStandards, additions and rehabilitations of non-conformingbuildingsshouldusethedesignfeaturesofthebuildingsoriginalperiod. The applicant added that the objectives are to make the house blend in with the neighborhood,obtain an extra bathroom, gain a little more space on the rear of the house and have the porchprovideprotectionfromtheelements. Public input was provided as follows: Jeff Frankel. OTPA stated the required findings were that the project must meet the Old TowneDesignStandardsandthisprojectdoesnotmeetthoseStandards. Mr. Frankel reiterated thepointmadebyMs. Thakur relative to the design features of the buildings original period. Hestatedthiswouldbe1973andtheyshallbecompatiblewiththesurroundingswithrespecttosizeandscale. He stated the front setback should be 20' and he asked does the Zoning AdministratorhavetheauthoritytograntaVariancewithoutgoingtothePlanningCommission? Ms. Thakurrespondedthattherearespecificdevelopmentstandards (i.e. front, side, and rear setbacks) forwhichtheZoningAdministratormakesthedetermination. Mr. Frankel stated he was under the impression the lot must have unique physical characteristicstohaveaVariancegrantedandtohimthislotdoesn't seem to be unique; therefore, hequestionedunderwhatcriteriathevariancewasbased. Ms. Thakur responded the existing porchencroaches4' into the front yard setback. This leaves an 11' setback, which is the same as theproposedporchandtheapplicantisextendingthelengthalongthefrontelevation. Further, therestoftheneighborhoodwassurveyedandthefrontyardsetbacksrangefrom10' to 17'. Mr. Frankel concluded stating that he would strongly encourage the Design Review CommitteetoenforcetheStandards. Janet Crenshaw OTPA sympathized with the owner of the home stating, "it is a '73 box and theporchentranceisnotveryinviting"; however, she didn't think the hip roof with a gable on thefrontwasappropriate. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 5, 2006 Page 6 John Murphy OTPA stated the reason he was in attendance was due to the setbacks. Hebelievesthesubjecthomeextendsfurtheroutintothefrontpropertyareathentheotherhomesonthesamesideoftheblock. There is only one period home that has two columns that extendfurtherforward. It was his opinion that a further extension into the front yard would make thishomeaprominentfeatureoftheneighborhoodandwhileitisaninterestinghouse, this would beentirelyinappropriate. He asked for something more appropriate to the period to be considered. Committee Member Woollett asked Staff if any investigation had been made whether there hadbeenabuildingonthepropertypriortothisone. The reason for his question was if there hadbeenonethenhebelieveditwouldbewhatisreferredtointheStandardastheoriginalperiodbuilding. The applicant interjected that his understanding is that the original house waspositionedmuchfurtherbackonthelotandwhentheownerchosetobuildanewhouseonthelothedemolishedthathouseandpositionedtheexistinghousefurtherforwardonthelot. Thegarageremainedanditisthecurrentownersopinionitdatesbacktothe1940's/1950's orperhapsevenearlier. Committee Members agreed that the existing structure was not a notable example of its period ofarchitectureandexploredavailableoptionsrecognizingtheydidhavesomeprecedencetoadoptastylethatismoreinkeepingwiththeneighborhood. Committee Member Wheeler stated iftheycouldlegallydemolishwhatisthereandbuildsomethingnewandifwhatwasbuiltnewissomethingtheDRCcouldapproveasbeingconsistentwiththestandardsforOldTownethenitwouldbeacceptable. A suggestion made by Committee Member Wheeler was to make it clear that the existing fasciaboardsaretoberemoved (see Sheet A1.2). Committee Member Wheeler stated he was a bit confused about the construction of the gable endofthenewfrontporchroof. Specifically, the front elevation calls fora 2x8 bargeboard but itdoesnotseemtoappearonthetwosideelevations. The side elevations seem to show somethingintheplaneoftheporchheaderbeamextendingabout8" out from the centerline of the columns.He added that this area needed to be studied further. The applicant responded he was correct andithasalreadybeenaddressed. Committee Member Wheeler expressed concern about the one porch column that is non-symmetrically placed to one side of the center of the porch. He offered a couple of suggestionsandprovidedasketchofatwo-column option. The applicant stated they are exploring a twocolumnoptionandwouldliketodosomethingtomakethecolumnsappearmoresubstantial. Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve DRC No. 4057-OS with the conditionsindicatedintheStaffReportandthefollowingadditionalconditions: 1) It is made clear on the drawings that the existing fascia boards are to be removed.2) The drawings are to be studied to show more clearly the 2x8 bargeboard.3) The applicant use two columns on the porch with the columns enlarged to provide moremass. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN; RECUSED ABSENT: Joe Woollett Bill Cathcart, Craig Wheeler, Joe WoollettNone None Jon Califf Donnie DeWees City ofOrange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 5, 2006 Page 7 MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 5, 2006 Page 8 3. DRC No. 4086-06 - LUCZON RESIDENCE A proposal to construct a 783 square foot addition to asingle-family dwelling and aproposed640squarefootaccessorysecondunitwithattachedthree-car garage.1341 E. Palm Avenue Staff Contact: de Koven James, (714) 744-7220, jdekoven(cr~cit oforan e orbDRCAction: Final Determination Senior Planner Christopher Carnes provided a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. No public comment was provided on this item. Chair Califf questioned the applicant regarding size of the stone veneer. The applicant providedasampleandrespondedtheyare6x6. Chair Califf asked what is the size of the column and whatsizestonewouldtheyuseonthecolumns? The applicant responded they would use the 6x6. Committee Member Wheeler stated that since the columns appear to be about 6" square therewouldbeastackupofonestoneontopofanother. The applicant concurred. He suggestedincreasingthesizeofthecolumnsenoughsoitlookslikeitcouldhavebeenbuiltwithstone.Another option suggested was wood posts. Committee Member Woollett asked what material does the existing building have on the front?The applicant responded "red brick", which will be replaced. Committee Member Wheeler stated on Sheet 3, Keynote E calls for 2x rough-sawn door andwindowtrimyetthisseemstobeuncomplimentarytothestyleoftheexistinghome. Instead hesuggestedthattheexistingwindowtrimbemaintainedonthehouse (without adding additionaltrimboardasisdepictedonthedrawing) and they remove Keynote E. The applicant stated theywouldbereplacingthewindowswithavinylwindow; low E, no rough-sawn and the trim wouldbedoneaccordingtothewindowspecification. Committee Member Wheeler stated he wouldsuggesttheykeepthelookofthewindowtrimascloseastheycouldtotheexistingandensureitisconsistentbetweenthehouseandtherearguesthouse. Committee Member Wheeler concluded stating he didn't see a need for a new 2x8 fascia but if it was done, he would suggest that it be a smooth finish rather than rough-sawn. Committee Member Woollett stated that since the stone is such an important element it would beadvisabletodecidewhatwasgoingtobeutilized - 4x4 or 6x6 posts would be preferable. ChairCaliffaskedifthestoneontheguesthousepostwasstillthere. The applicant respondedaffirmativelyandadvisedtheywoulddothatonetomatch. Committee Member Wheeler statedthestoneupthechimneyshouldmatch. The applicant agreed. Committee Member Cathcart asked if they were doing any additional landscaping. The applicantrespondedtherewouldbeanavocadoandlemontreeeliminated. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 5, 2006 Page 9 Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve DRC No. 4086-06 with the conditions indicated in the Staff Report and the following additional conditions: 1) If new landscaping is proposed, a landscape plan shall be submitted to Community Services. 2) The stone-faced columns shown on the elevations should be changed to 6x6 wood post columns, smooth finish. 3) The rough-sawn door and window trims shown on the drawings be omitted and the window trim stay as close as possible to the current style. 4) If a 2x8 fascia is to be installed as per the drawings, the finish should be smooth. SECOND: Bill Cathcart AYES: Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Donnie DeWees MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 5, 2006 Page 10 4. DRC No. 4092-06 -MINK RESIDENCE A 723 sq. ft. addition to asingle-family residence and construction of a two-car garage. The proposal includes the demolition of an existing garage. Negative Declaration No. 1771-06 is being prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposal. 533 E. Jefferson Street (located within the Old Towne Orange District) Staff Contact: Christopher Carnes, (714) 744-7225, ccarnes(u~cit. of~ge.org DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission Senior Planner Christopher Carnes provided a project overview during which he noted this is a preliminary review and through Staff review there were findings of a couple of items requiring correction to meet Code (Mr. Carnes highlighted reviews of those corrections on the drawings). Chair Califf asked Mr. Carnes to explain the dynamics of making this a preliminary review versus a Recommendation to the Planning Commission. Mr. Carnes responded saying this project will go back for reconsideration, as a Negative Declaration may be required; it is in Old Towne, and it may involve the demolition of a "contributing" structure. If it is conclusive that a Negative Declaration is required, this project will return to the DRC (along with the Negative Declaration). Jeff Frankel, OTPA, stated they always hate to see a contributing accessory structure demolished. Mr. Frankel then asked "if this is contributing structure why wasn't there an environmental review required?" Mr. Carnes responded that a determination as to contributing or non-contributing has not yet been made and if it were found to be anon-contributing structure then the Negative Declaration wouldn't be required. Mr. Frankel asked for clarification if this was a shed or garage? Mr. Carnes stated it is substandard in size; there is an opening for a garage door; however, it has been walled off and the small size of the structure will not accommodate a vehicle. Mr. Frankel indicated he had a concern with the gable design reflected on the plans for the east and west elevations. He did not think it was consistent with the bungalow style. He thought a ridge perpendicular to the ridge on the existing structure would look better. Mr. Carnes stated due to a reconfiguration in the floor plan there would be a change in this portion of the design. Janet Crenshaw, OTPA, stated she understood the change to the garage and asked if there was a reason they wanted it closer to the back lot as there are other options. Ms. Crenshaw also stated she agreed with the statements made by Mr. Frankel. Committee Member Woollett asked for clarification to a statement made by Mr. Carnes about having to move the garage forward. Chair Califf responded that on an accessory structure within 10' of the back property line you cannot exceed 10' in height. Discussion evolved around options including doing a shed roof with an 18" overhang. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 5, 2006 Page 11 Chair Califf asked if the fireplace was proposed as part of the new construction. The applicant responded it is not a real fireplace, it has a radiator or something inside of it and the plans will be revised to correctly reflect the design of the existing fireplace. Committee Member Wheeler offered the following comments: 1) There doesn't appear to be anything on the drawings that would satisfy the Secretary of the Interior's requirement for a demarcation between the historic portion and the addition. He suggested that the addition be narrowed 6 or 8 inches on each side so as to provide an offset between the old and new construction. 2) There needs to be more information about what is being removed from the rear of the existing home. He asked if they could possibly have a set of existing elevations prepared so they could better understand what is changing. The applicant responded they would use as much of the material from the existing house as possible as they want it to look authentic. Committee Member Wheeler suggested they reuse the existing attic vent. 3) He suggested they try to construct one new gable roof for the addition with the ridge running perpendicular to the ridge of the existing home's main roof. If the new addition was narrower than the existing home it would help to allow a new rear gable form to intersect the rear slope of the existing roof form without having the eave have to make an uncomfortable transition to the front roof's barge boards. 4) The front elevation does not show the exposed rafter tails on the home and the drawings for both the home and garage should be modified to show those to match the existing. 5) The drawings currently call out for some features to match the existing; however, the list should be expanded to include: door and window trim, attic vents, exposed foundation wall, porch floor finish, exposed rafter tails, barge boards and outlooker beams. 6) There should be more information on the design and finish of the new fireplace and chimneyis it was going to be brick, stucco, or something else? Chair Califf interjected "or at least clarify is it going to be replaced with a real fireplace?" The applicant responded no, they are trying to maintain as much of the original as exists today. 7) There needs to be more information on what sort of garage door would be used, as the DRC would want something that is consistent with Old Towne. The applicant asked if it would be barn doors. Chair Califf responded it could be and provided other suggestions. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 5, 2006 Page 12 8) The drawings should specify that the barge extensions be framed in the traditional manner with structural outlooker beams which support structural barge boards which in turn support the roof sheathing that runs in a direction perpendicular to the barge boards. Flat outlooker rafters should not be used. Chair Califf interjected that the corollary to this is that the starter board always spans from the barge back to the roof; you never have it running up the roof. 9) The exterior elevations do not seem to show the outward cant of the lowest two or three courses of lap siding. This is a traditional feature that should be maintained and used in the new addition. 10) His personal opinion (based on the photographs provided in the packet) is that at least some portions of the garage are of pre-1940 construction and thus should be considered contributing". As a suggestion, Committee Member Wheeler asked if they could move the garage and re-do it in a way that would keep the majority of it but incorporate it into the new garage? The applicant responded yes, but how do you do it and still satisfy the requirement to have 2- car parking? Options were explored and Mr. Frankel interjected where precedence in town has been set. Mr. Carnes stated the subject property is zoned R-I-6 which does require a 2- car garage. If properties are zoned R-2 and R-3, the required overnight parking is one covered space and one open space. Committee Member Woollett stated that if you have an existing garage that is contributing sometimes the City is willing to waive the second covered parking space requirement. Mr. Carnes replied you couldn't just waive it; they would have to apply for a variance. Committee Member Wheeler interjected if they reduced the square footage of the addition to less than 500 square feet, two-car parking would not be required. The applicant will work with Staff on acceptable options. ll) It appears that a window is being removed from the rear wall of Bedroom 2, which may present issues for providing sufficient light, and air and this may not meet egress requirements. The applicant inquired about next steps and if anyone had a feel for the cost differential for moving the garage and adding on to it versus demolishing it. Chair Califf stated that if it were found to be a contributing structure they would always encourage applicants to first look at ways to retain it, which doesn't mean in any way that it would be the most economical solution. Chair Califf asked if the water heater is inside an enclosure. The applicant responded affirmatively, indicated on the drawings where it is currently located and where they propose to move it. Committee Member Woollett made a motion to continue DRC No. 4092-06. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 5, 2006 Page 13 SECOND: Bill Cathcart AYES: Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Donnie DeWees MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 5, 2006 Page 14 5. DRC No. 4100-06 - MIKE' S PLACE This item was continued from the May 3, 2006 DRC meeting. A request to upgrade site improvements in order to establish a Used Car Sales business no service facilities) within an existing commercial structure. 1138 West Chapman Avenue Staff Contact: Anne Fox, (714) 744-7229, afox(a~,cityoforange.org DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission A project overview was provided by Contract Staff Planner Anne Fox during which she advised the DRC had previously reviewed this item and had asked for additional detail. No public comment was provided on this item. The applicant shared a photometric of the lighting scheme and advised the light source is from the existing locations with existing fixtures. Committee Member Wheeler asked if the Orange Police Department is going to accept the gated area being pretty dark. Ms. Fox stated it could be conditioned to have lighting in that area. Chair Califf interjected that it would need to taper off so as not to have spillage on to the adjacent resident. Committee Member Wheeler stated the front of the building also appears to have low light. Chair Califf interjected there may be contributing light coming from another structure. Chair Califf conducted a review of the items outstanding from the May 3rd meeting as follows: 1) Show the required planter width on the rear (south) property line with the curbing so verifications can be done on the parking space shifts and potential impacts to the drive out area. Ms. Fox detailed what modifications have been made to the plans and a review of the dimensions concluded with the applicant stating he didn't agree with what is proposed as he doesn't think it will be aesthetically pleasing and he will lose too much space to landscaping. Ms. Fox reiterated Staff's position as is documented in the Staff Report. Committee Member Woollett asked what the landscaping requirements are per Code. Ms. Fox replied it needs to have 10 feet and there is none currently. Committee Member Cathcart reviewed the planting plan and advised the spacing of the ice plant should be changed from 24" (on center) to 12" (on center); the Indian Hawthorne has to be upgraded to 5 gallons; the valve called out is anti-syphon---which is acceptable; however, it would stick up in the air and may not be desirable due to vandalism. Committee Member Cathcart suggested the use of a backflow device with the valves underground in a box; the pop- ups should be 6" (versus 4") so they would rise above the ice plant. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 5, 2006 Page 15 2) Show inclusion of the other planters with potential administrative adjustments. This was illustrated during the discussion of (1) above. 3) Provide some sort of unobtrusive, locking swing gate on the entry/exit points that would address the security issue. The applicant advised that basically he is using exactly what was used at the station on Chapman. 4) Obtain a point by point printout of the lighting levels from the manufacturer if it's available or have them visit the site (preferably with the Police Dept. in attendance) to conduct the survey and make a plan. While adequate lighting is the goal, he cautioned to be cognizant of not lighting up the adjacent resident's bedroom. This was addressed at the onset of the meeting. 5) Provide a color scheme. The applicant showed a copy of the color scheme with samples of the actual colors. 6) Provide signage detail. Committee Member Wheeler asked for clarification on the height specified on the drawing and asked if it had to spell out "1138 Chapman" or if "1138" was okay. Ms. Fox stated she would verify this prior to obtaining the permit. 7) Provide a full irrigation plan. This was already discussed. Committee Member Wheeler stated he thought getting rid of the raised planters was a big improvement and they would also have better visibility of the cars. Ms. Fox advised that this project does have to go on to the Planning Commission. Chair Califf made a motion to recommend approval of DRC No. 4100-06 to the Planning Commission with Conditions 1-7 indicated in the Staff Report and the following additional conditions: 1) A backflow device should be provided and the suggestion is the backflow device allow the valves to be placed in boxes underground. 2) The 4" pop-up sprinklers should be increased to 6" pop-up sprinklers. 3) The Indian Hawthorne shrubs be increased from 1 gallon to 5 gallon. 4) The spacing for the ice plant go from 24" on center to 12" on center. 5) The final irrigation plan needs to be submitted to the City. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 5, 2006 Page 16 SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Donnie DeWees MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 5, 2006 Page 17 6. DRC No. 4110-06 - BATAVIA BUSINESS PARK Review site improvements, landscaping, exterior remodel, signage proposed for an existing industrial development that is proposed to be subdivided into 5 lots. 1402-1424 North Batavia Street & 1130 West Trenton Avenue Staff Contact: Anne Fox, (714) 744-7229, afox(a,cityoforan e.or DRC Action: Final Determination A project overview was provided by Contract Staff Planner Anne Fox during which she advised most of the improvements are necessary in order for the City Council to consider subdivision of the property into five individual lots, which the applicant is also currently processing with the City's Engineering Department. The applicant's representative, Bryon Ward stated they have a light industrial park; they approached the improvement of the park to accomplish the subdivision in a way that maintains the integrity and the functional operations of the park yet maximizes the landscaping and beautifies the park; they worked with a lot of existing landscape areas and in response to some of Staff's concerns they intensified the amount of trees provided on site without overly foresting the site; they were cognizant of view corridors; they are removing and replacing a lot of old planting material and they are upsizing the trees on site. Committee Member Cathcart stated they do have extra parking that could be used for landscaping fingers. He pointed out where there is no plant material and stated he is not suggesting that they just add more trees; he is suggesting they possibly look at adding more plant material in the areas where the landscaping fingers are not being used. The applicant stated that due to the depth it would be difficult to see the material. Committee Member Cathcart responded "you'll see it when you're on the site". The applicant asked how many fingers would be appropriate. Chair Califf responded anywhere from 10-12 stalls before you have a finger. He also suggested a finger on either side of the sliding gate. Ms. Fox interjected that Staff proposed another option opposite the loading areas (the specific area was pointed to on the drawings). Committee Member Wheeler made a suggestion to incorporate a bit of landscaping at the end of the long corridor, which would hide the transformer. Chair Califf asked Committee Member Cathcart what width he is proposing. The response was "5 foot". The applicant stated that while they certainly want to accommodate the requests they are only over parked based on the way the project is currently being utilized but they would like to intensify some of the uses in the future. This is seen as one of the values of this property and they don't want to eliminate the potential for doing that by removing the parking. Committee Member Cathcart responded that they are not asking for removal of all excess parking; they are only suggesting adding landscape fingers to have the landscape permeate the entire project. Chair Califf reiterated only going from 10-12 stalls, which would only result in the elimination of approximately 6-8 parking stalls. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 5, 2006 Page 18 The applicant discussed the color scheme stating the existing buildings are single color (white) and on two of the buildings the walls blocking the window lines will be removed. The slump stones will be sandblasted and freshly painted. There will be a 2-color scheme on the buildings. Ms. Fox indicated where there are some insets on Parcel 5. Committee Member Woollett stated he noticed there are a lot of exposed trash bins and he asked if they planned to enclose them. The applicant responded they will have a new enclosure and the size and quantity of bins to be provided were approved by Public Works. Committee Member Woollett asked about the existing truck doors and if there were man doors in the truck door. The applicant responded they were for fire-exiting purposes so if the truck doors were down there could be exiting out of the building. Ms. Fox interjected this was also a Staff concern as it appears there was parking space striping on a couple of the parcels that probably shouldn't be there since it is in a typical loading area. Committee Member Woollett stated there is almost a conflict of attention to the area. The applicant stated they thought many of the suggestions made were very good ones that could be incorporated into the plan without compromising how the park is functioning; they just don't want to go too far so that the tenants become unhappy and the park doesn't work for them. They will make every attempt to place landscape fingers in areas where they don't disrupt the truck activity. Committee Member Wheeler suggested that the final drawings clearly show where the loading zones will be. Committee Member Cathcart stated that linear root barriers be provided subject to the approval of the Community Services Department. Chair Califf made a motion to approve DRC No. 4110-06 subject to the Staff recommended conditions of approval found in the Staff Report with the additional conditions: 1) The applicant provides planting fingers along the south and west property lines--- approximately every 10 stalls. 2) The planting strip along the west property line is enlarged to 4 foot (inside dimension) with a 6" curb and that the stalls are allowed a 2-foot overhang. 3) A planter will be provided up against the Parcel 5 building in the vicinity of the transformer location. SECOND: Bill Cathcart AYES: Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Donnie DeWees MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 5, 2006 Page 19 REVIEW OF MINUTES: (1) JUNE 1, 2005; (2) JUNE 15, 2005; (3) MARCH 1, 2006 Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve the minutes of the (1) June 1, 2005; (2) June 15, 2005; (3) March 1, 2006 meetings with revisions as noted. SECOND: Jon Califf AYES: Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Donnie DeWees MOTION CARRIED. A motion was made by Chair Califf to adjourn until the next scheduled session. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Donnie DeWees MOTION CARRIED.