Loading...
08-15-2007 DRC MinutesCITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES -FINAL 15 August 2007 Committee Members Present: Jon Califf Bill Cathcart Donnie DeWees Craig Wheeler Committee Members Absent: Joe Woollett Staff in Attendance: Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Howard Morris, Sr. Landscape/ Assessment District Coordinator Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner Doris Nguyen, Associate Planner Diane Perry, Recording Secretary Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary Administrative Session - 5:00 P.M. The Committee met for an administrative session beginning at 5:00 p.m. Regular Session - 5:30 P.M. The meeting adjourned at approximately 6:34 p.m. to the next regular meeting on Wednesday, September 5, 2007. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 15 August 2007 Page 2 of 12 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Opportunity for members of the public to address the Design Review Committee on matters not listed on the Agenda. No public attendees addressed the Design Review Committee on matters not listed on the Agenda. REVIEW OF MINUTES: June 20, 2007 Chair Wheeler stated the minutes had been reviewed during the Administrative Session. A motion was made by Committee Member DeWees to approve the minutes of the June 20, 2007 meeting with revisions as noted. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler NOES: None ABSTAIN: Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart ABSENT: Joe Woollett MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT ITEMS: All matters that are announced as Consent Items are considered to be routine by the Design Review Committee and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of said items unless members of the Design Review Committee, staff or the public request specific items to be removed from the Consent Items for separate action. There were no items moved to consent at this meeting. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 15 August 2007 Page 3 of 12 AGENDA ITEMS: DRC No. 4272-07 -MAIN LIBRARY HARDSCAPE AND PERIMETER WALL PROPOSALS A proposal to modify a hardscape feature and perimeter wall at the Main Library. 407 E. Chapman Avenue Staff Contact: Nora Jacob, 714-288-2474, njacob@cityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination The applicant, Main Library Director Nora Jacob, stated that she was addressing the Committee on two changes she would like to ask for now that the library is open and people are using it. The first change is raising the block wall to 5' between the library and the immediate neighbor on the northeast on Center Street, since people are coming over the wall with abandon and sitting on it. The property owner had actually asked the City to do this approximately three years ago, anticipating that this would be the issue. The other change is to do something about the rocks that go around the west half of the building from just outside the front Chapman Avenue door to the parking lot entry door. People walking past the historic fountain are hanging around the fountain, enjoying the historic fountain and picking up the rocks to toss into the fountain. Unfortunately, the weight and mass compared to even an American Quarter is significant. There are five to six dozen significant dings in the finish of the fountain already. The Save the Fountain people are understandably unhappy with this. She stated they are trying to reeducate the public, but they are getting 15,000 to 20,000 people a week through the building. Instead of having the rocks loose, Ms. Jacob proposes to mortar them in, basically on edge. Ms. Jacob gave an example with the rocks she had brought to the meeting. She indicated they are also adding some more safety bars, some more bike racks, a couple more benches, and the block wall Ms. Jacob brought Contractor Mr. McCormick's drawings to share with the Committee. The rocks would be mortared from in front of the Chapman Avenue side all the way around the west side. Mr. McCormick spoke to three concrete and rock specialists to put the plan together. Ms. Jacob offered to give further information if needed. Public Comment Janet Crenshaw, OTPA, address on file, came forward and stated that she is upset about what is happening to the fountain. She questioned if the chains would be coming off of the birds or if that was going to be a permanent fixture. Ms. Jacob answered that the chains were put on the fountain without their knowledge. This was in the transition between the Save the Fountain Committee and a contract being put into place to maintain the fountain structure. Someone, when the water was off, hung from one of the birds and broke it off. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 15 August 2007 Page 4 of 12 Chair Wheeler asks if there was any further public comment. There was none. The meeting was opened to Committee discussion. Committee Member Califf stated that he has seen that treatment in a number of places and it is quite attractive and a good solution. Committee Member Cathcart asks if the area around the building is part of the Water Quality Management plan issue? Meaning that there has to be so much permeability around the building for drainage, they can't have any water leaving the site going into the culverts to the ocean. Ms. Jacob stated that this is addressed in the plan. Committee Member DeWees asks (referring to the drawing) if other areas will be the same way? Ms. Jacob stated yes, for the four pots with the trees and there is a fifth pot with a tree by the parking lot entrance. Beneath those there are rocks. Anything that has loose rocks will be set. Chair Wheeler asks about the pots themselves, they have some rocks in them too? Ms. Jacob responds that they will take them out and mulch. Chair Wheeler has a concern with the wall and wants to make sure it matches what is already there. Committee Member DeWees asks if the scored border will be pulled off and the wall will just be added to, with the scored border placed back on top? Ms. Jacob states that makes sense. Committee Member DeWees asks if they looked at any other ways of altering the wall to discourage people from sitting on it. There are some t-shaped brackets that come up that could come over the top of the wall. Ms. Jacob responded that what Mr. McCormick proposed is a sloped cap. However, birds can sit on a sloped cap even if people can't. Chair Wheeler would like to know if the neighbor wants more privacy in addition to deferring people from sitting on the wall? Ms. Jacob states as much privacy as we are able to design for her. Committee Member DeWees clarifies not to just raise the wall but to come up with something to make people avoid it? Ms. Jacob responds yes. Committee Member DeWees notes that the foundation appears smaller - is it big enough fora 5' wall or will the whole wall be taken down. Ms. Jacob responds that she does not know, as they are not that far along. If that is what it takes is to take the whole wall down and put up a new one that is what will be done. There are three neighbors who have experienced a great deal while the library was being constructed and this is one of them. It is the City's moral obligation to do this right. Committee Member Califf asks are the additional benches that you are talking about, are they to provide adequate seating. Is the seating of people along the wall a by-product of loitering or a by-product of the need for more seating outside the library? Ms. Jacob states that it is a by-product of loitering in that particular location. We are adding the benches at the back of the library. Our experience is that people using the handicapped spaces do not realize how close they are to the front door. They make their trek to the back door and by the time they come into the library, they are aching and upset, for having to walk so far. They actually like going by the fountain, but are asking for places to rest along the way. Parents with children may also sit there. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 15 August 2007 Page 5 of 12 Chair Wheeler is confused by the Staff Report as it appears they've highlighted The Children's Garden by mistake. Ms. Jacob agrees. Chair Wheeler states that he asked a librarian about it and she mentioned that there are several problems with The Children's Garden and wonders if there are any suggestions the Committee would like to offer for The Children's Garden. Chair Wheeler suggests that you might open it up to the public as a quiet reading garden. It would be a place on a nice day to sit outside and read. Ms. Jacob states that they will be opening it to parents and children. The library has a whole policy on how it will be used. There are a couple of benches out there. She stated they want to make sure once you walk out there that you are safe. Committee Member DeWees made a motion to approve DRC No. 4272-07 -Main Library Hardscape and perimeter wall proposals, subject to the conditions in the Staff Report. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Joe Woollett MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 15 August 2007 Page 6 of 12 2. DRC No. 4008-OS - TUSKATELLA CENTER A proposal to modify previously approved plans for the exterior facade remodel continued from August 1, 2007 meeting). 1301 E. Katella Avenue Staff Contact: Chad Ortlieb, 714-744-7237, cortlieb(a,cityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination Senior Planner, Chad Ortlieb, gave an overview of the project consistent with the Staff Report and the modifications made to the project. Mr. Ortlieb reviewed the changes made; which include the new cornice, the stone features, the cornice height and one of the clocks on the tower has been removed. There is also a color legend included in the plans. Applicants Jill and Kevin Anderson introduced themselves. Mr. Anderson explained that the stone feature that is on the drawing was taken off. However, the architect had put it back on in error. Chair Wheeler asks if the applicant has anything further they would like to add? Mr. Anderson explained that they did try to address everything from the last meeting. They eliminated certain parts of the tower elements and some rock, changed the features, and enhanced the column in the front. Chair Wheeler thanked the applicant and asked for any public comment on this item. There was none. The item was opened to the Committee for discussion. Committee Member Cathcart stated that he likes the plan and that the applicant simplified a lot of the material, and elements that were put there for no apparent reason. Committee Member DeWees states that he is fine with the project. Chair Wheeler adds that the only thing he would like to add is that in the areas where the stone goes up there should be some horizontal molding. Mr. Anderson states that they talked about this in the last meeting and although it's not visible on here, on the larger version there is a cut off. Chair Wheeler stated there seems to be a little bit of discrepancy on Building H between the floor plan and the alterations. Committee Member Califf states that he has no issues. Committee Member Califf made a motion to approve DRC No. 4008-OS - Tuskatella Center with the noted modifications, revised documentation, and conditions contained in the Staff Report. SECOND: Donnie DeWees AYES: Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler NOES: None ABSENT: Joe Woollett RECUSED: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 15 August 2007 Page 7 of 12 3. DRC No. 4262-07 -JACOB RESIDENCE A proposal to construct a 640 sq. ft. accessory secondary unit behind the primary residence. 792 N. Grand Street Staff Contact: Doris Nguyen, 714-744-7223, do uyen ,cityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination Associate Planner, Doris Nguyen, gave a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Chair Wheeler asked for any comments from the applicant. Applicant Nora Jacob explained her reason to add another unit to her rental property was to secure a future income for herself. She states that her primary request to Keith Messick, Architect, was to add a unit with the most privacy possible from the main unit. That is the idea on this proposal. Chair Wheeler asks if there is any public comment on this item. There is none. The project is opened to the Committee for discussion. Committee Member DeWees opens with a question: Does the City let you have two drives on a residential lot? Mr. Messick responds, yes, with 20' clearance. Ms. Jacob adds that the block wall will be coming down and wrought iron is going up. The reason is to give greater visibility for that driveway, and for the existing driveway, as well as removing the two Cypress trees. Committee Member Califf asks if the adjacent gate would be limited to 42". Ms. Nguyen explained that it would not as this is on the side yard of the primary residence. Chair Wheeler was concerned with the proposal for heating and cooling and the location of any units. Mr. Messick states that the units would go in the wall, probably below the landing, and shows the Committee the proposed location on the plans. Committee Member Califf adds that typically the profile would be a little bit wider. Do you have enough window and wall? The Committee reviews the plans and has questions accordingly. Chair Wheeler states that his calculation came up with 654 square feet, rather than the 639 from the drawings. Committee Member Califf states that he came up with 686, There is discussion about whether the storage should be counted in the square footage measurement and it is confirmed that it is if it is inside the house. Committee Member Califf explains that normally, even if it is a closet which technically is inhabitable, you still count it. It is under the 2na floor and it should be counted. Ms. Jacob states that she could take that storage unit out and that she just put it there because she thought it was not part of the square footage. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 15 August 2007 Page 8 of 12 Committee Member DeWees clarifies that it is part of the footprint. Chair Wheeler, speaking to Committee Member Califf, asks what he came up with as a total square footage? He states that downstairs, not counting the stairs, he came up with 426 downstairs and 260 upstairs. Chair Wheeler's measurement is identical, 686. This is 654, plus 33 counting the storage. He adds that it would be best to check that and make sure it is under 640. There is another issue he would like to address, one visual aesthetic item, which is the peak of the roof. This is a neighborhood with all single-family homes. There are a few nearby that are two-story. Most of the homes are one-story. He suggests trying to cut down the peak and the feeling of something foreign going into that neighborhood. One way might be to change the ends of it. He refers to the drawing and gives suggestions. Mr. Messick responds that they did look at three to four different roofs, cutting it on different plates. The plates are 8 and 8, which is about as compact as we can get it. He agrees it looks kind of funny with the hip up there. It is more in style with the other roof styles in the neighborhood. It is such a small hip in proportion to the size. This is why we chose the gable. Ms. Nguyen explains that the only other two-story homes in that neighborhood do have hip roofs referring to the drawings/photos, Ms. Nguyen shows the Committee the other location of the two-story homes in this neighborhood). From Ms. Jacob's property you can see one of the two- story properties. Chair Wheeler responds that there is a similar form that he is suggesting here, again referring to the drawings/photos. Committee Member Califf states that we need to find an internally consistent design theme. That is the finding that he is struggling with. In and of itself it is quite nice, but it is hard to make a finding when the window trim and other features actually have nothing that is consistent with most of the neighborhood. He clarifies that he does not mean to match other residences but to at least be consistent. Chair Wheeler adds that it is part of the Infil1 Design Guidelines. Mr. Messick responds if you want to be just like the neighbors that he would need to take off the trim and that would mean to go backwards. Committee Member Califf states that most of the design issues we have is that people want to make them too fancy. They want to make them too different than what is there. It is a fine line between whether you are matching it or just using like materials and similar details. It just needs to someway be consistent. This is different than matching. Ms. Jacob wants further clarification and that she has followed the discussion so far, but it would help as a layperson to get some examples of what the Committee is suggesting. She asks the Committee to give her one or two examples. Committee Member Califf responds that one example would be to choose aone-story scheme. This would make it simpler to do a similar type of roof. Chair Wheeler was saying about the roof is that there seems to be a predominant roof form in the neighborhood. Some acknowledgement of that would be helpful. Ms. Jacob asks if we stayed two-story? Committee Member Califf answers yes. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 15 August 2007 Page 9 of 12 Committee Member DeWees has a concern of the mass issue. You have a high mass pushed so far forward. Did you think at all about trying to keep the two-story portion towards the back? You are so close to this two-story portion, you could still have the mass with carports. The top portion could be moved and still have a hip roof. Mr. Messick states that they did consider this as well. The idea was to push the mass towards the back of the lot, in contrast with the single- story existing unit. Ms. Jacob added that they are looking at it from Lomita Avenue. Chair Wheeler states that if it wasn't a corner lot that would make more sense. With the corner lot you really have two backs. Mrs. Jacob asks for clarification on how the driveway would work. Committee Member DeWees explains that you would still have the driveway with the carport, and there would be one level with your second story, which may affect your square footage. Ms. Jacob answers that she likes the two-story. It is easier to rent a loft bedroom with a balcony that is private from the main house. There is room for either aone-story or a two-story on the property. The one story is a bigger footprint, and the remaining yard diminishes. Committee Member DeWees states that typically with a corner lot you have more square footage to your lot compared to the rest of them. He worries about if you sell the house to someone else that they would make the carport into a bedroom. He is concerned that someone would put something in long after Ms. Jacob is gone. Ms. Jacob asks if that would be illegal on the face of it, because of the extra square footage? That they would never come through you -that they would just build it? Ms. Nguyen explains that it is very easy to construct something internally, without coming through us. It is hard to catch. Committee Member DeWees states that it is unfortunate because we are seeing more and more of it. We are limited in what we can and cannot do. Ms. Jacob clarifies, so what you are saying is to reconfigure to one-story? Committee Member DeWees responds yes, ideally. Ms. Nguyen adds that with aone-story there is a useable open space requirement, if this goes to one-story it will not meet that. If you do not count the setbacks the property is 1,027. If you count the setbacks it was 1,817. Planning Manager Leslie Roseberry clarifies that it needs to be useable open space. If you are counting the side yard setback of 5' it doesn't work. Ms. Nguyen continues that it was counted, as it is considered useable (referring to the drawings). When I did count the set backs it was at 1,817. Mr. Messick explains that with atwo-story design you have a place to park cars. This tucks the cars inside under the structure. Committee Member Cathcart states that he would prefer to see a two-story with more landscaping in the area. He also suggests that the irrigation system should be updated with the additional landscaping. Ms. Jacob agrees, and states that atwo-story is still her preference. Chair Wheeler had a few things to add. The elevation does not show the storage area and the columns seem to move about from one drawing to another. He also asks if any engineering has been done. Mr. Messick states no, not until we find out if it will be one or two-story. Chair Wheeler continues with his personal feeling is that he does not have a problem with atwo-story City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 15 August 2007 Page 10 of 12 design as long it's handled well and it's compatible with the neighborhood. He also likes the idea of putting the mass turned the other way, as Committee Member DeWees had suggested. Ms. Jacob responds that interpreting in the simplest of terms, is to take what has been designed and turn in 90 degrees? Chair Wheeler states that it would take a different design. The Committee reviews the plans and gives suggestions to Ms. Jacob and Mr. Messick. Committee Member Califf has questions on how the yards would be separated. Ms. Jacob explains that there would not be a fence, but landscaping. Ms. Nguyen states that she also supports that idea. Committee Member Califf agrees that would be fine, however, if a resident has a dog or cat that they would want a fence to keep them in. He reviews the plans in regards to the yard and mentions that all the windows open onto the yard space. Ms. Jacob explains that the windows were designed with heavy-duty window coverings in mind. The light for the living room comes in through the first story windows which would give enough light. Committee Member DeWees suggests if things were moved around you might be able to work in windows in the entry that face out towards Lomita and only have high windows on the other side. Ms. Nguyen adds that there is also a garage that you would be looking out to from the primary residence. Committee Member Califf, referring to the drawings, clarifies that if the yard is counted towards the primary unit, you really have to dedicate it to the primary unit. Chair Wheeler adds that the area is most of the open space that would be used for BBQ's, and the like by the primary residence. Ms. Jacob explains that as a resident of this property for almost 30 years, the driveway was used, and a proposed fence would run along the driveway to Lomita. Committee Member DeWees asks if the fence is part of the proposal? Ms. Jacob responds that it is, and explains that the fence will run along the driveway. He comments that he would like to see the fence pushed back 18" with more landscaping. The Committee discusses the idea of pushing the fence back and giving a better streetscape with the added landscape. Ms. Jacob states that they did drive around the Old Towne area and look at fence designs. Committee Member Cathcart states that with the landscaping, you want to have plants that are bulletproof and consistent and plants that do not require much pruning. Ms. Jacob is agreeable to the idea of moving the fence back. Ms. Jacob summarizes that the Committee is comfortable with atwo-story design if they swing the mass around. Chair Wheeler suggests that they use a hip form for the upper roof. Committee Member Califf adds that on the elevations you need to specify the material that is proposed for the windows and the fascia. Ms. Nguyen asks if the Committee would like the windows to match the existing house? Committee Member DeWees states that he would like to see them relate more to the existing house. He also feels that this type of home will be on the historic registry in the future. Chair Wheeler adds that the recessed windows are unnecessary. Committee Member Califf adds that the house has some interesting features with the stucco and porch area; it has character on its own. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 15 August 2007 Page 11 of 12 Ms. Nguyen, answering an earlier question, states that she shows the lot area as being 6,600 sq. ft. The existing house, plus the proposed house, would be 1,998, which would be 30%. Committee Member Califf explains that it should be listed in the plans. Committee Member Cathcart adds that he would like to reiterate his suggestion to keep the landscape materials simple and basic. Committee Member Califf continues that typically we require a note on the site plan that states all the landscape areas will have automatic irrigation systems. Committee Member DeWees made a motion to continue DRC No. 4262-07 Jacob Residence. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler NOES: None ABSENT Joe Woollett RECUSED: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 15 August 2007 Page 12 of 12 ADJOURNMENT: A motion was made by Committee Member Cathcart to adjourn to the next regular meeting on Wednesday, September 5, 2007. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler NOES: None ABSENT: Joe Woollett RECUSED: None MOTION CARRIED.