Loading...
07-20-2005 DRC MinutesCITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES -FINAL July 20, 2005 Committee Members Present: Jon Califf Donnie DeWees Craig Wheeler Joe Woollett Staff in Attendance: Leslie Aranda Roseberry Christine Kelly, Contract Project Manager Administrative Session - 5:00 P.M. The Committee met for an administrative session beginning at 5:00 p.m. The meeting adjourned at approximately 8:00 p.m. Regular Session - 5:30 P.M. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 20, 2005 Page 2 1. DRC No. 4009-OS -DONALD DORMEYER Proposed accessory dwelling unit 2680 N. Glenside Street Contact: Christopher Carnes, Senior Planner DRC Action: Final Determination Chair Califf announced that Christopher Carnes was absent so the applicant, Don Dormeyer, provided a brief project overview. This project is for construction of a 640 square foot granny flat intended as low income housing in an area that is not presently being used. The applicant advised he had received notification from Mr. Carnes that the new structure needed to match the existing housing and that approval had been recommended. No public input was provided. Committee Member Woollett noted the suggestions in the Staff Report and asked the applicant to elaborate on the changes to be made. The applicant responded that the roof ridge peaks will be eliminated as most of the neighbors have done. He has picked out a roofing that is very similar to the existing and when the existing house needs to be re-roofed they will remove the ridges on it as well. Committee Member Woollett responded that for this area they use guidelines that deal more with the relationship to the existing house and the neighborhood than an exact replication of detail. The discussion continued with the applicant showing samples and highlighting the details he liked as well as those he disliked but would be leaving as they match the front house. Committee Member Woollett noticed a break in the facia. The applicant responded "yes, that is only on the ends of the roof, it is a weird angle." Mr. Dormeyer pointed out that this building is 38 feet off the street thus it is almost going to be entirely hidden. There are some fairly mature trees that will remain. The sidewalks will be done with pavers. Committee Member Wheeler noted that the Staff Report mentioned the residence has vinyl windows but from the street he thought they looked like aluminum. The applicant responded they are aluminum." Committee Member Wheeler asked what kind of windows would be put in the new place. The applicant responded that although he hadn't given it much thought yet he believed they would go with vinyl. Committee Member Wheeler then asked what stone would be used and where. The applicant responded it would be used on each side of the front of the garage, in 1 foot columns, between the wood trim. Committee Member Wheeler stated he always finds it rather objectionable when a very narrow strip of stone is used. In his opinion it doesn't look realistic, it looks like an applique. Chair Califf added that it also poses a problem of where to terminate it. The applicant responded he is also considering doing the entrance in the same stone and he could add it to the front house around the entrance alcove which would tie it all together. Committee Member Woollett stated that would create other issues. The applicant responded that he would skip it completely. Chair Califf pointed out there is nothing wrong with putting stone there, it just City of Orange Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 20, 2005 Page 3 raised the question of where is it on the existing house and if it is going to be done, it needs to be reflected on the plans. Committee Member Wheeler pointed out there are a couple of odd things on the floor plan that aren't really a concern at this point; however, if they turn out to be a problem and necessitate a change to something, then that would be a concern. The example he cited was in the bathroom where it looks like there is a sliding glass door that you would have to climb over the tub to go out through. Mr. Dormeyer advised that this would be reversed. Another example cited was in the kitchen it appears you can't open the door to the dishwasher because it is buried behind the refrigerator. Committee Member DeWees added that they may want to have a window in the kitchen near the sink. Mr. Dormeyer responded they will use a small refrigerator and there are a lot of windows and sliding doors---every room. has a patio. This is to give a real nice indoor/outdoor living type of effect and make it feel bigger. He pointed out that with only 640 square feet to deal with, to create a living space, things get pretty tight. He illustrated placement of a dining room table, a wide screen television and a sofa, noting you could see the wide screen TV from anywhere in the main room. He also highlighted the advantage of the bathroom becoming part of the public area by closing a particular door or having it be part of a private area with additional access to the courtyard in the back. Committee Member Woollett stated he thought it was essential they be very careful in the action taken on this as when it goes into the Building Department and into Enforcement, they may not know what to enforce. He suspected there would be a situation where the construction plans are going to be different and stated he thought if they were going to approve this project, they would need to be specific as to what they were and were not approving. Committee Member Wheeler added he thought they should make it a condition that all they are approving are the things shown in the drawings seen today and they wouldn't be approving anything not shown, such as changes. Committee Member Woollett made a motion to approve DRC No. 4009-OS with the following conditions: 1) Acceptance of the submission does not apply to any of the landscaping shown or to any changes that refer to the existing house. 2) The materials, exterior finish, door and window details, including trim and color for the proposed building should conform to those in the existing building. 3) References to paving materials in the drawings are accepted as noted. 4) All new irrigation systems should be automatic. 5) The applicant will not be required to match the existing Nordic roof, which includes the Dutch gable and the broken line of trim at the ridge or angled barge. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Jon Califf, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 20, 2005 Page 4 2. DRC No. 3944-04 -MAPLE AND PIXLEY TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT 501 W. Maple) A request for recommendation to the Planning Commission regarding the architectural and landscape plans for athirty-two unit transit oriented development comprised of for-sale, residential loft units, three of which will be live/work units. Additionally, the DRC is asked to recommend to the Planning Commission (a) whether the project's architectural and landscape plans comply with the Santa Fe Depot Specific Plan and the Orange Municipal Code; and (b) on the replacement structure or use for the site, for the demolition of a noncontributing structure within the Old Towne District. 501 West Maple Avenue (Old Towne Historic District) Staff Contact: Christine Kelly, Contract Project Manager DRC Action: Recommendation to Planning Commission Planner Christine Kelly provided a brief project overview during which she stated this item was before the DRC at the last meeting; however, there is a revision to Condition (6) which was the request of Public Works regarding the trash plan. It is not design related; rather, is specific to not having carts come out to the public streets. She noted at the last meeting the DRC listed a number of items to be addressed at a subsequent meeting and asked that the applicant provide the responses. A summary of items Ms. Kelly listed is as follows: 1) Identify on the plans the interface of the windows with the brick. 2) The bricks should be natural, not painted. 3) The exterior brick should be extended and wrapped around the side elevation. 4) The color of the aluminum should be identified. Black was suggested. 5) The drain pipes should also be black. 6) The stucco treatment should have a smooth finish to be the most compatible with what they are trying to achieve on this property. 7) Provide a massing element for the garage elevations, possibly for each of the windows, or do something more with that. 8) Possibly add mesh or pipe rail to the rear elevation or the garage elevation. 9) Include brick along the east elevation, as per the previous plans. 10) Give a better demonstration on how the lighting is provided on the building throughout the project. 11) Because things were changing in a hurry, make sure all the plans match, the floor plans and elevations. 12) Show all the elevations. 13) Provide a final color materials board for review and recommendation. Two minor items were added by Ms. Kelly: 1) Show all the live/work units. 2) Remove the pavers as requested by Waste Management. Ms. Kelly introduced Mr. John Reekstin, as the Senior Vice President with The Olson Company. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 20, 2005 Page 5 Mr. Reekstin introduced Mr. Brad Mansfield with William, Hest & Holister, and asked him to describe what was done to modify the plans in response to the DRC concerns raised at the last meeting. Mr. Mansfield provided responses to the concerns as follows: 1) RE: the windows: a sample was provided of an aluminum window made by MillGuard. The window comes in a black color (a sample color chip was provided). 2) RE: the sides of the building: brick will continue around and be added to one facade. References on the drawings were made to places where brick has been wrapped. 3) The front elevation has not changed other then they added brick to the three-plex (to sort of book end it). 4) The billboard was removed, which wasn't mentioned in the notes. Some kind of orange crate signage maybe proposed on the rail side. 5) The rear elevation had more protruding pieces. Now what they are trying to pick up on is pilaster pieces (photos were provided). 6) Lighting on the building was shown. They are trying not to make everything symmetrical and perfect; instead, to offset it, which might be appropriate for the type of architecture that is being proposed. 7) The actual detail of the interface of the windows over the brick was shown. They are not trying to show any of the stucco or the banding. They are accenting the windows themselves, which are black to match downspouts and any other kind of ornamental metal and perhaps even the light fixtures. They will just bring the brick right to the edges so the only thing exposed is the window itself. 8) The brick will not be painted. 9) RE: the stucco treatment, they are planning on a 20-30, not a really smooth finish but the roughness will be tied in with the brick a little bit. They are losing the stucco treatment around the windows themselves so you will just see metal at those points. Chair Califf questioned if there is any treatment that speaks to the way the brick opening would have been created for a window in a brick building. Mr. Mansfield used the 2x6 drawing to illustrate what they could do which involved a combination of two details, losing the extra 2X member, returning the brick back and then having an edge with just the opening itself without showing any stucco. Other ideas where proposed by Committee Members Woollett and Wheeler with anticipated outcomes explored including the use of corner pieces. Committee Member Wheeler indicated he was having difficulty reconciling the rear elevation, with the end elevations (looking at the triplex). He questioned Mr. Mansfield if they just stopped or would they wrap? The response was "they would stop." Basically, it returns back and dies into the brick facade. Committee Member Woollett indicated he was having a little trouble with the inconsistency of the corbel. Mr. Mansfield responded that he actually envisioned it being more of a half round or a quarter round. Committee Member Wheeler suggested a quarter round as it would give it more of an industrial feel. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 20, 2005 Page 6 Committee Member Woollett questioned what the garage doors would look like. Mr. Mansfield stated they are proposing corrugated metal., roll-up doors, not the sectional doors being called out. Chair Califf asked what is being done with the railing. Mr. Mansfield advised they will be using pipe rail as suggested at the last meeting. A handout that shows an enlarged individual light was provided. The applicant advised they will use one with all black metal parts to tie with the windows and awnings. Planner Kelly showed the landscape plan and where the pavers are that Waste Management wants eliminated. Waste Management representation told her that the weight of heavy equipment breaks the pavers. Committee Member Wheeler wondered how they would feel about brick pavers, set in sand, like in crosswalks in Orange. They seem to hold up quite well. Ms. Kelly stated she would ask them and point out that the base is what provides the stability. The plans with the revisions to the three live/work areas were shown. Mr. Mansfield advised that for all intents and purposes the floor plan is exact, the only difference is they removed the optional bedroom. With other cities he wasn't required to put in the full detail in the handicap restroom so he had not done so on this plan either. He reiterated there is not a whole lot of difference between the live/work and the regular units, with the exception of the CC&Rs that they would be able to do whatever allowable uses were permitted for those spaces. Chair Califf asked if those uses would mirror the typical commercial uses in a residential zone, or if they were going to have to write up something special for that? Ms. Kelly responded they had written up something special that is going to go back to the Planning Commission and City Council for approval. In some areas, at the Olson Company's request, it is a little more conservative i.e. if someone wanted to have a bakery that would require a Conditional Use Permit because you have residences that may be sensitive to the odors. It is also a little more conservative than what is in place for the Santa Fe Depot Specific Plan as well as the City zoning code. John Reekstin advised they had toned it down based on the Santa Ana lofts and their experience there. Applicant representative, Jackie Rodarte, provided samples of the colors and materials and provided an explanation of how the color boards are to be interpreted. Chair Califf asked for additional detail about the doors. Mr. Mansfield showed the proposed garage doors and stated black might be a little too powerful for those. They will probably stay with the true materials for the garage doors themselves. For the entry doors they are proposing metal pieces over a fiberglass or wood door. Mr. Mansfield clarified they kind of tie into the garage doors and basically it is all accent metal. The exceptions are the garage doors and the face plate on the front doors. They would be black and then have the galvanized pieces for the garage doors. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 20, 2005 Page 7 Public input was provided as follows: Janet Crenshaw, OTPA, indicated she was concerned that the brick looked like used brick. The applicant responded that is what they are proposing. Ms. Crenshaw interjected that is not what they would have used to build a house in the past so she believes it is out of context. Jeff Frankel, OTPA, indicated he was getting a lot more comfortable with the design and expressed his appreciation with the Olson Company meeting with them to discuss all the issues. His main concern remains the height; specifically since the project is going to be amended to include the Santa Fe Depot property. His opinion is it should be required to comply with the Santa Fe Depot Specific Plan (SFDSP). The SFDSP states for both residential and mixed use which this would be categorized as mixed use), it states building height: 2 story, parapet not exceed 25 feet. Mr. Frankel asked for an explanation as to how the City came up with 32 feet. Mr. Frankel also asked that they stay away from using foam around the window area; instead, use authentic materials, like cast stone for the sill. Angie Rust, address on file, questioned the use of metal on the entry doors. Mr. Mansfield responded they are using a very simple door, plain, all painted black with pieces of metal bolted to them. Todd Denning, address on file, questioned if there is going to be visibility into other people's yards since there are condos situated close behind this project. He also expressed concern with the height and what impact that would have on views from the surrounding areas. Chair Califf stated that usually at some point in a project of this nature the DRC would want to see a section. They have not seen that yet and it is important to know what you can see on the roof and how far something is setback. Mr. Mansfield clarified that at one point the building was 44 feet and has been dropped to 31 feet at the highest point. The majority of the parapet is at 26 feet. He illustrated where the parapet was raised on the brick element and how the roof setback minimized visibility from most vantage points. Mr. Denning asked if there was such a thing as quiet steel rollup doors as his experience is they are all quite noisy and it could be quite an annoyance. Mr. Mansfield responded they are just proposing using the material and aesthetic quality of a rollup door. Mr. Reekstin added that from a marketing perspective they didn't want a system on a door that would create HOA issues due to noise. Chair Califf offered a suggestion for another industrial type of garage door that would just be a metal, slab door with horizontal siding as the cladding on the outside. It is kind of low tech and although he didn't know from a marketing standpoint if it is as desirable as a zero clearance rollup, it was presented as an option as it is seen in industrial applications because it is lightweight. Mr. Mansfield responded that may be the approach they will take---a typical garage door where, just like the entry door, you mount corrugated metal, or a true facade of an industrial roll up door with the saw tooth pieces. Ms. Crenshaw asked if there is some sort of study that could be done which would show how far away you have to be to see the roofing materials. Mr. Reekstin responded their plan is to do a line of sight study prior to the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Mansfield interjected that a City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 20, 2005 Page 8 significant amount of money is being spent on the roofs and they don't want them to tower over any of the adjacent public areas or even the interior courtyards. They are not intending to make them disappear; however they are intending that where seen, they match the architecture. Chair Califf asked Ms. Kelly to elaborate a bit on the Santa Fe Depot Specific Plan and how that relates to building height. Ms. Kelly's response was that the SFDSP is in need of an update. She read sections of the plan and sited examples of residential and industrial uses. She indicated that what was allowed for Chapman for the parking lot to the north is 32 feet and added that the zoning code allows 32 feet in R-3. Chair Califf asked if the SFDSP is being amended to attempt to clarify the gray areas about height. Ms. Kelly responded "the amendment is site specific to this site, and it says height not to exceed 32 feet. It sets site specific development standards: a 5 foot side yard setback, 10 foot rear yard setback, 15 foot front yard setback and height not to exceed in 32 feet." Committee Member Wheeler stated he was confused about the elevations as it appeared to him that the window placements were incorrect on the plans as presented. After discussion with Mr. Mansfield it became evident the windows were drawn right up at the plate. Committee Member Wheeler indicated they needed to see some sections to get make an accurate assessment of what is actually being done. Mr. Mansfield responded that the entire design concept is elevation driven. Chair Califf stated that it appeared to be certain something about the elevations was going to have to change just because as it is being presented it physically won't work. Committee Member Wheeler added a point of clarification that the extent of the brickwork needed to be the same for each of the eight buildings in the cluster i.e. that they are going to have the same amount of brick everywhere, every building---they are not just going to be just doing brick on the Maple side and maybe the railroad side, but eliminate the brick on some of the other buildings. Messrs. Mansfield and Reekstin responded that is the intent. Mr. Mansfield added the live/work and the regular units are going to have the same appearance. The idea is to keep absolutely the same amount of brick on each of the sides. Chair Califf suggested they would be more supportive of a range of colors, without the bright highlights that they do to create the used feeling. He commented that you do have to be very careful with used brick otherwise it will just jump out at you with real whites etc. They make blends that are just a natural range you get in firing that are quite pleasing in their handmade hand-fired quality but don't have the painted highlights. Committee Member Wheeler added if you think of it in terms of the industrial buildings in the era, they were not built of used brick, they were built of cheap brick. Mr. Mansfield responded the color consultant is trying to show the extremes of the brick itself. He expressed appreciation for the suggestion on the blends and added they weren't intending to go as strong as depicted. Committee Member Wheeler stated his opinion on the entry doors coming into the optional bedrooms was something they would receive pressure to change as people aren't going to want an entry door in that location. Mr. Mansfield responded that this is more of a generic plan and he was reasonably certain that option would not be offered. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 20, 2005 Page 9 Committee Member Wheeler's final comment related to the heights not being called out anywhere on the latest set of drawings. Mr. Mansfield responded that the elevation has not changed (other than they added more brick to it) and he would be glad to make exactly what they are part of the record. Committee Member Woollett stated he thought they worked really hard on this and he recognized it is a very difficult problem particularly when your normal orientation is different. This is a different orientation because you have marketing to deal with and the people that are going to be renting these are not attuned to the City Guidelines, they just want to move into a place they like. He agreed with the applicant's comments about the view, stating he thought they had adilemma- if you don't see the roof then why spend a lot of money on it. On the other hand, it is important. The fact is it is setback and often times, with industrial buildings, you do have a little portion of the building that is up higher. He did not have a problem with what was done and stated he thought it was fine. He added that a few notations could be made about the color and the garage doors. Committee Member Wheeler added that a condition should be made about the elevations; specifically, if they changed substantially in the course of design development, they would want to see them again. Committee Member Woollett moved to recommend approval of DRC No. 3944-04 to the Planning Commission with the following modifications to the site plans and subject to recommendations 1-7 in the Staff Report: 1) The treatment around the brick, around the windows will be such that the opening for the window and the coursing of the brick will be aligned. A treatment at the head and the sill will represent a normal, full brick pattern. The windows will be recessed back from the face of the brick. The brick color will not only be natural color, but the color range will not include white, which would simulate used brick. 2) The optional bedroom would not be offered in those units where the entry door would come into the bedroom. 3) All metals except for the roofs and the garage doors will be black. 4) The color of the entry doors will be black except for the metal portions of the door. 5) The exterior light fixtures on the building will be larger than the samples shown, so that they closely approximate the size shown on the elevations. 6) If the elevations change as a result of the actual floor-to-floor heights, or as a result of the thickness of the floor structure, the elevations will be submitted again to the Design Review Committee for approval. 7) Pavers would be as on the plan with an adjustment made (as necessary) in the construction to allow passage of heavy trucks without damaging the pavers. 8) The required City notes on irrigation and landscape plans will be added to the drawings. The landscape and irrigation plans will be submitted to Staff for final approval. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 20, 2005 Page 10 SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Jon Califf, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION CARRIED. A second motion was made by Chair Califf in the matter of DRC 3944-04 that the DRC recommends to the Planning Commission the proposed replacement structure is an appropriate replacement for the demolition of anon-contributing structure within the Old Towne District. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Jon Califf, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 20, 2005 Page 11 3. DRC No. 3991-OS -STADIUM PROMINADE Proposed partial redevelopment of a commercial/entertainment center. Northwest corner of Katella Avenue and Main Street (1623 W. Katella Avenue) Staff Contact: Christopher Carnes DRC Action: Final Determination Robert Atkinson introduced himself as the Vice President of the development company. Mark Fehlman introduced himself as the Architect for the project and then introduced the Landscape Architect and the Project Architect. Mr. Fehlman gave an overview of the project informing the Committee that the project was initially designed in 1996/1997 with a belief that the area was going to redevelop as mixed use. Ultimately, it really didn't develop as per the plan. The theatres and the pad buildings have been very successful---King's Fish House, Chili's, and actually Acapulco's (though it operates as a standalone) have also been very successful. The more inline buildings haven't been successful so they are trying to update and upgrade the center so that it overall becomes successful. Everything they are doing is designed to create more people space. Chair Califf questioned what is the net overall affect in parking? The response was there is only a small increase in square footage. When completed there will be 1816 stalls, the City code requires 1751, currently there are 1795 stalls. Committee Member Woollett stated that although he can see why this would be nice to do, he wasn't in favor as he believes that as it is planned it would divide the pedestrian movement and there is no access in the rear of the structure. Mr. Fehlman stated that in recognition of this some of the things they are doing is increasing the use of pavers, increasing the use of accent lighting and creating some pedestrian pathways so they're promoting pedestrian circulation between the buildings. Mr. Atkinson stated there are wide sidewalks so people will feel safe. Committee Member Woollett stated his concern is pedestrian crossing over the vehicular area. Mr. Fehlman said they didn't have a feel for the amount of vehicle traffic there would be in the area but they were trying to promote a feeling of it being one center. The pedestrian areas may also be raised but will still meet the ADA requirements. Committee Member Wheeler asked what would be done with the square footage being removed from Building #6. The response was they are proposing to move the glass line back and create a walkway. Committee Member Wheeler asked about the placement of hedges as specified in the Staff Report to block the view into the parking lot. The applicant responded there would be a grade change and they would not have a problem with doing the 42" screen as requested. Committee Member Wheeler asked about the raised element in Building #12 and indicated the columns appeared to be too skinny. He suggested they have the scale or massing of the pilasters on the building. The applicant responded they could fatten them up. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 20, 2005 Page 12 Committee Member Woollett asked the applicant if they had any concerns with the conditions in the Staff Report. The response was "no, we've reviewed them and feel fine about them." A brief discussion took place relative to signage. The applicant indicated the signs utilized perforated metal elements, the lettering is solid, they are interior illuminated and are designed to help with updating the center. Committee Member Woollett made a motion to approve DRC No. 3991-OS site, building, and landscaping plans with Conditions 1 through 5 listed in the Staff Report and the following additional conditions: 1) The City required inspection notes on irrigation and landscape plans be included. 2) The landscape and irrigation plans be submitted to City Staff for final approval. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Jon Califf, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 20, 2005 Page 13 A motion was made by Committee Member DeWees to adjourn until the next scheduled session. SECOND: Jon Califf AYES: Jon Califf, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION CARRIED.