Loading...
08-02-2006 DRC MinutesCITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES -FINAL 2 August 2006 Committee Members Present: Jon Califf Bill Cathcart Donnie DeWees Craig Wheeler Joe Woollett Committee Members Absent: None Staff in Attendance: Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager Chris Carnes, Senior Planner Daniel Ryan, Senior Planner Historic Preservation Sonal 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 7:25 p.m. During the administrative session Nora Jacobs provided an update on progress and changes occurring with the library project. Regular Session - 5:30 P.M. NOTE: Item #2, DRC No. 4104-06 - Lennar Homes was heard out of sequence (after Item 3), as the applicant did not have full representation at the time the item was called; however, the minutes appear in the same chronology as the Agenda. The meeting adjourned at approximately 7:25 p.m. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 2 August 2006 Page 2 DRC No. 4064-06 - FRANCO ADDITION A proposal to add a second story onto an existing residence, as well as construct an accessory second housing unit. Continued from March 15, 2006 DRC meeting. 186 North Eckhoff Street Staff Contact: Sonal Thakur, (714) 744-7239, sthakur@cityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination A project overview was provided by Assistant Planner Sonal Thakur during which she advised this project was before the Committee on March 15, 2006. Ms. Thakur provided copies of the original plans to enable the committee to contrast them to the revised plans. Ms. Thakur stated the applicant also wanted to know if there was any window preference. Committee Member DeWees asked the applicant if they had decided to eliminate all the window trim previously indicated. The applicant responded that they followed the recommendation of the Committee. Committee Member Woollett stated he thought they made some very important adjustments and were very responsive to the concerns previously expressed by the Committee. No public comment was provided on this item. Committee Member Wheeler stated that if aluminum windows were common in the neighborhood they would be acceptable for this project; however, he would suggest they not use grids. Chair Califf added they do not have to be mill finish; instead, they could be dark bronze anodized. Committee Member Woollett interjected they could have a polyester coating. Committee Member Wheeler asked why they decided to offset the second floor a foot in from the first. He didn't see any aesthetic problems with it but he thought structurally they might be creating some issues for themselves. Committee Member DeWees made a suggestion that moving the entry point might provide for better room utilization when the furniture is placed inside. The applicant stated that although it is better from the inside to reposition the entry, from the outside it looks better where it is as to move it would place it too close to the garage. Committee Member Wheeler suggested it would look better if they removed the slight curved arch (with the exception of in the entry) and went to a straight beam (the exact location of the arches to be modified was pin-pointed for the applicant on the drawings). Chair Califf asked which roof they would be using - a flat the or the S shaped? The applicant responded they would be using a flat tile. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 2 August 2006 Page 3 Committee Member Cathcart stated he agreed with Recommendation #1 in the Staff Report and added that when the landscaping is re-done, they need to put in an automatic system. The applicant stated he planned to put in an automatic irrigation system. Chair Califf made a motion to approve DRC No. 4064-06 with the following conditions: 1) The applicant remove the second proposed parking space associated with the accessory second housing unit (as indicated in the Staff Report). 2) A note is added to the plans to include an automatic irrigation system. Chair Califf commented further that at the rear elevation the arches could remain as shown on the plans or alternatively, be flat like a beam. Also, the front door could be relocated as dictated by aesthetics and further development of the furniture layout and it could be either a single or double door, at the applicants discretion. SECOND: Donnie DeWees AYES:Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES:None ABSTAIN:None ABSENT:None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 2 August 2006 Page 4 2. DRC No. 4104-06 - LENNAR HOMES A proposal for 60 detached, two-story, single-family residences. Continued from the May 3, 2006 DRC meeting. Planning Area No. 3 -Del Rio Planned Community Staff Contact: Chris Carnes (714) 744-7225 or ccarnes@cityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination NOTE: This item was heard out of sequence (after Item #3), as the applicant did not have full representation at the time the item was called. Senior Planner Christopher Carnes provided a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. In addition to the comments provided by Mr. Carnes, the applicant stated they modified the elevations, changed the massing on a couple of the elevations to create some different appeal from the street and enhanced some of the elevations. Chair Califf asked if there was anything about the elevations they wanted to highlight. The applicant responded: On Plan 1B a gable was added to create some differentiation. On Plan 2A they made the most drastic changes. These were highlighted on the drawings for the committee. Committee Member Wheeler stated he thought the changes to this model were a great improvement. On Plan 3B the hip and gable were changed to create variation. These changes were also highlighted on the drawings for the Committee. On Lot 165 the front exposure was changed and again the changes were highlighted on the drawings for the Committee. Committee Member Wheeler asked why they didn't enhance Lot 163, as it seemed to be a prime candidate for enhancements. Chair Califf pointed out it was a similar orientation and the parking is somewhat exposed. The applicant responded they could add some shutters. On Lots 13.6 and 183 (both are Plan 1B) the right elevation was popped out, shutters were added, and windows were added in the closet and the garage. On Lot 160 shutters and windows were added (the placement of these was shown to the Committee). On Lot 161 (Plan 3C) three windows were added, the front was popped out and the roofline was changed. These were highlighted on the drawings for the Committee. On Lot 162 three windows were added. These were highlighted on the drawings for the Committee. No public comment was provided on this item. Committee Member DeWees pointed out that on Plan 1B the windows are the same size yet the shutter sizes vary and they should be the same width as the windows. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 2 August 2006 Page 5 Committee Member Wheeler stated. there were several areas where the plans and elevations were at odds with each other and suggested it would be a good idea to clarify which version was correct. The specific instances were: 1) Plan 1: the front elevations show a small window in the master wardrobe and one in the garage and these don't appear on the floor plan. The applicant responded that the elevation governs. 2) Plans 2 and 2X: all three right elevations show three windows over the stair and the floor plan only shows one. The applicant responded that the floor plan governs. 3) Plan 3: the floor plans show two windows on the left side of bedroom #3 and one window on the left side of the living room. None of the windows show up on the three left elevations. The applicant responded the elevation governs. 4) Plans 3 and 3X: the floor plans show two windows over the stair on the right; only one is shown on each of the right elevation. The applicant responded the elevation is correct. 5) Plan 3C shows a parabolic arch at the entry that scales out at about 6'6" wide at the base and the floor plan entry opening scales out to about 4'0" in width so the question was posed how the arch would be done. Committee Member Wheeler pointed out that a similar situation also occurs on Plan 2C. The applicant responded they could make a niche out of it. Committee Member Wheeler suggested the space above could be used as a cabinet. Committee Member Wheeler made several points related to privacy issues: 1) The bathroom window on Plan 1 X is very close to a bedroom and a bathroom window on Plan 3. The proposed solution was to eliminate the window on the side wall of the bathroom. The applicant responded this solution was acceptable except on the enhanced version. 2) The master bathroom windows on Plans 3 and 3X are directly opposite each other. The proposed solution was to move the window on Plan 3X to the side elevation behind the water closet. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 2 August 2006 Page 6 The applicant responded it was important to maintain the street look. Committee Member Wheeler asked if they planned to use obscured glass and the applicant stated no, then conceded on this point. 3) The second bathroom window on Plan 3X is across from a bedroom window on Plan 2X. The proposed solution was to use a high window in the Plan 3X bath (using a 2-0X2-0 instead of a 2-OX4-0). Committee Member DeWees interjected this would be the preferable solution in as many instances as possible. 4) The master bedroom windows in Plans 1 and 2X are nearly opposite each other. The proposed solution was to use high windows in both of the bedrooms on the side elevations and perhaps enlarging the other master bedroom windows as necessary (again 2-0X2-0 windows would be a good choice). The applicant agreed and stated he would make it a 2-OX2-0. 5) The bedroom windows on Plans 1X and 2X are almost directly opposed. The proposed solution was a fairly radical step of using an imitation window on Plan 1X's front elevation and enlarging the bedroom window on the side elevation. Suggestions for false windows were also provided. A niche was encouraged which would allow them to keep the form for the front elevation and eliminate the privacy issue. The applicant objected to this change as he commented he believed it would devalue the elevation. He stated he appreciated the privacy issue but the prospective buyer would see it on the models when they purchased the home. Committee Member Wheeler stated when the home was purchased after viewing the model, the buyer could still be disappointed when they moved in and their neighbor was only 12' away. The applicant reiterated it would be disclosed to prospective buyers. The landscape representative for the applicant added they do have trees that could be used to provide privacy. Tree choices were discussed. Committee Member Cathcart suggested a 24" box Tristania and inasmuch as there aren't many trees shown and there are several pockets he noted where more trees could be added to help with the privacy issues. Chair Califf added this would help the view corridor. Committee Member Cathcart stated the plant palette is fine. Mr. Carnes stated the motion would be to approve the site plan as revised and the elevations as corrected per the memorandum from Craig B. Wheeler dated August 2, 2006 with exceptions as noted in the memo. Further, Mr. Carnes asked if the archway over the door was resolved. Chair Califf stated the elevation would govern and the plan would be modified to make it work. Senior Landscape Coordinator Howard Morris cautioned the applicant to not use a tall shrub in front of a lighted address placard. The applicant agreed to identify where the addresses would be located on the building and verify the plant material is appropriate. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 2 August 2006 Page 7 Committee Member Wheeler proposed a motion on DRC No. 4104-06 to approve the site plan, exterior elevations, and floor plans as presented with the changes/corrections made during the meeting, which were noted by Staff. SECOND: Jon Califf AYES: Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 2 August 2006 Page 8 3. DRC No. 4121-06 - CASA TERESA DECK REMODEL A proposal to construct a new exterior deck, landing, and stairs on a contributing apartment building within the Historic District. 123 W. Maple Avenue, (Old Towne Orange Historic District) Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, (714) 744-7224, Bryan@cityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination Senior Planner Daniel Ryan provided a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Committee Member Cathcart asked if the tree would be left in place. The applicant responded affirmatively. Mr. Ryan reviewed the recommendations made by Staff. The applicant commented that they hoped the new railing did not have to look too much like the existing railing, as they didn't care for the way the pickets come down. Instead they wanted to leave a little room at the bottom. Committee Member Wheeler asked if they were proposing the bottom rail be 4" above the deck? The applicant responded affirmatively. Chair Califf asked if there was seismic retrofit work being done on the building. The applicant responded, no, there has already been seismic retrofit work done on the building itself but he wasn't sure exactly when. Jeff Frankel, OTPA, asked for confirmation of the placement of the new deck. The applicant responded it would be on the second floor. Mr. Frankel asked if it would be visible from the street and what materials would be used. The applicant responded it would not be visible from the street and he thought they would be using Douglas Fir. Mr. Frankel wanted assurances they would not be using synthetic materials and the applicant confirmed they would not be using synthetics. Mr. Frankel stated there appears to be a new vinyl fence on the east elevation with an 8-foot gate and he was hoping it could be tied to this project so it could be replaced with appropriate materials. Committee Member Wheeler suggested they check with the Building Department if they could put a small gate at the top of the stairs for the protection of small children. The applicant responded the children in this building would only be there 3-4 months before they would be relocating. Committee Member Wheeler commented he would like to see Recommendation #3 in the Staff Report modified to read, "Provide pickets installed per Code." Further, Committee Member Wheeler added it would be a good idea to have Recommendation #4 modified to read Replacement decking to be wood with protected end grain." Committee Member Woollett asked what would be wrong with using a new generation type decking instead of wood as wood deteriorates. Chair Califf responded that since it is considered part of an addition it would have to be consistent with the existing. The applicant interjected they would like to have the City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 2 August 2006 Page 9 flexibility to use an alternative material for the decking, not the handrail. Chair Califf stated they should stick with lumber but follow the best practices and asked if it is currently T&G. The applicant responded, "no, it's 2x4's spaced at 1/8". Mr. Ryan asked for confirmation that Recommendation #4 should be modified to read "wood" vs. T&G. Chair Califf responded affirmatively. Chair Califf made a motion to approve DRC No. 4121-06. The applicant interjected that although nothing was said about it, they do plan on having a new covering over the deck, which isn't pointed to on the elevations. Committee Member Woollett asked, "What is the overhang?" The applicant responded it would be 24 inches. Chair Califf stated they would need to see a section showing what it would look like. The discussion revolved around the roof treatment. The applicant stated the intent was just to provide some minimal cover. Committee Member Woollett asked how many supporting posts they planned to have on the balcony. The applicant responded that for the railing he was hoping they could consider this a very general sort of view of what the railing would be like. Committee Member Woollett stated the reason he asked was because he thought they would probably want to have a couple of more posts. The applicant agreed. Committee Member Wheeler stated that the east elevations seem to show the railing going all the way across and he suggested they study it to ensure they have adequate headroom at the top of the stairs under the beam. Options were indicated on the plans for the applicant's consideration. Chair Califf restated the motion to approve DRC No. 4121-06 with the following conditions: 1) Approval is subject to the Recommendations in the Staff Report. Items 1 and 2 of the Staff Report remain unchanged. Items 3 and 4 in the Staff Report will be modified as follows: 2) Item 3 in the Staff Report is modified to read, "Provide square pickets installed per Code." 3) Item 4 in the Staff Report is modified to read, "The replacement decking is to be wood with protected end grain." 4) The proposed roof over the landing will be supported by wood posts with a wood header. It is anticipated 2x6 roof rafters will be utilized at 16" or 24" on center. There will be a 2x8 fascia board. The entire structure underside (anything visible) will be painted to match or compliment the stair rail and decking. The slope of the roof will be a low slope, approximately '/2" per foot. Staff will assess the appropriateness of the design at the time of submittal to the Building Department. SECOND: Joe Woollett AYES: Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 2 August 2006 Page 10 4. DRC No. 4125-06 - GABOURIE ADDITION A proposal to construct a 184 sq. ft., addition to the rear of a 1915 Craftsman Bungalow. 345 S. Glassell Street, (Old Towne Orange Historic District) Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, (714) 744-7224, dryan@cityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination Senior Planner Daniel Ryan provided a project overview consistent with the Staff Report and then stated you were probably wondering about the compartment marked CATS outside of the utility room. The applicant interjected that the owner's cats have a door from inside the house to enter a cage so they can watch the world but not be out in it. The applicant stated he wasn't sure about how the line of demarcation on the north side would be accomplished. Chair Califf responded that would be made very clear. Further, the applicant stated the owner believes her current front door is original to the house and she would like to use the same type at the back. Chair Califf responded if that was the original door it would be appropriate. Jeff Frankel, OTPA, stated: It was refreshing to see such a small sympathetic addition compared to many that have been before the committee in the past. It looks pretty good. He agreed with the recommendations in the Staff Report. Mr. Frankel then questioned if all the materials match the existing. The applicant responded affirmatively. Committee Member Wheeler reviewed a list of items, specifically: 1) The CATS compartment doesn't show up on the elevations so what is the height of it? The applicant responded it is about 6' high, completely screened. 2) Is the roof over the existing rear utility room door there now or is it to be part of the new construction and if it's there now, how is it supported? The applicant responded it is there now and there is a roof over the back door that provides cover for the CAT area. There may be a couple of brackets on it but there are no columns. 3) It does not appear that the single window remaining in the Master Bedroom will provide sufficient light and air for that room. It was suggested that they go to a 3-OXS-O. Since it also does not appear to meet egress requirements, will the office door be considered to meet this requirement? It was suggested they check this with the Building Department. Chair Califf suggested if they have to change out the window perhaps the original could end up on the back of the addition. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 2 August 2006 Page 11 4) How to establish the line of demarcation on the north side where the addition attaches to the original was discussed. Committee Member Wheeler stated it could be accomplished with some sort of trim board. Chair Califf cautioned that even though you could get a matching siding, often times the thickness doesn't match. The discussion revolved around other options that were pinpointed on the plans. A 1 ft. popout was preferred by the applicant, which would accommodate the tankless water heater. 5) The lack of written information on the drawings could cause the progress of the project to wander off course due to ambiguity. It was suggested that some notes be added to the elevation sheet before it is submitted for building plan check. The applicant stated he didn't notice it but it has now been revised to annotate. Committee Members went through the following list of items to be added to ensure there were no omissions. 1) New wood siding to match existing in form, exposure, finish, and corner treatment. 2) New windows to be of wood construction with painted wood exterior finish. 3) New door and window trim to match existing. 4) Barge boards to closely match existing in size and finish. The closest available modern dimensional lumber size may be used. 5) Exposed rafter tails to match existing in size, spacing and finish. The closest available modern dimensional lumber size may be used. A caution was given to check the spacing and a suggestion was made to scab on a 2x4 rather than trying to notch. 6) New extended barge framing to match existing. Flat 2x4 outlookers may not be used unless they were used in the original construction (a photograph of an example was provided). 7) Outlooker beams to match existing and may need to be structural to support the bargeboard. 8) New attic vents to match the existing. 9) Exposed foundation walls to match existing in finish and texture. The applicant stated the full intent is to not be able to tell this is an addition. Mr. Ryan asked if the line of demarcation could go either way? Chair Califf responded affirmatively unless the roof is changed in which case the Committee would probably want to look at it. The applicant stated the homeowner has delayed re-roofing the house so they intend to remove the existing roof and re-roof the entire home, which includes the addition. Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve DRC No. 4125-06 with the conditions as noted by Staff and further clarification on Recommendation 3 to state "the door must match the existing entry door." City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 2 August 2006 Page 12 Committee Member Woollett pointed out there was also an option to have a 1 ft. popout on the north side. The applicant interjected this would give them a nicer demarcation. SECOND: Donnie DeWees AYES: Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. The applicant asked if there was an appeal period or if he could go ahead and submit the plans once the corrections were made. Planner Ryan responded there is a two-week appeal period; however, he is probably pretty safe to go ahead. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 2 August 2006 Page 13 REVIEW OF MINUTES: (1) JULY 5, 2006 (2) JULY 19, 2006 Chair Califf made a motion to approve the minutes of the July 5, 2006 meeting as amended. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: Donnie DeWees ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve the minutes of the July 19, 2006 meeting. SECOND: Joe Woollett AYES: Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: Jon Califf ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 2 August 2006 Page 14 A motion was made by Joe Woollett to adjourn until the next scheduled session. SECOND: Donnie DeWees AYES: Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES:None ABSTAIN:None ABSENT:None MOTION CARRIED.