Loading...
08-16-2006 DRC MinutesCITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES -FINAL 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 Daniel Ryan, Senior Planner Historic Preservation 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. Regular Session - 5:30 P.M. The meeting adjourned at approximately 7:55 p. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 16 August 2006 Page 2 of 11 1. DRC No. 4135-06 - OCTA-ORANGE DEPOT PEDESTRIAN CROSSING A Metrolink project to construct an underground pedestrian crossing in the Santa Fe Depot Station. 184-186 N. Atchison Street (Old Towne Orange Historic District) Staff Contact: Julia Gonzalez, 714-744-7227, ju onzalez ,cityoforange.org DRC Action: Project Introduction -DRC Recommendations to Staff Irma Hernandez, Senior Assistant to City Manager, provided a project overview during which she advised: This project is only at 30% and will be brought back to the Committee probably within the next month when it will be at 60%. This is an OCTA funded project. Orange Station was identified as the only station along the Metro Link that does not have an over cross or under cross for movement of passengers from one side of the tracks to the other. After considerable review the Orange City Council made a decision to have an under cross. City staff has met with the City Council and Police Department to obtain input on the project and identify areas of concern. Elements of the areas of concern have been addressed within this first set of drawings. In March 2006 CTC requested construction documents be submitted by December 2006. Metro Link will be overseeing all the construction. In Phase II a paseo is being planned, perhaps down Maple Avenue. Underground utility facilities are planned as part of this project during Phase II. Committee Member Wheeler suggested that Chapman University be included in talks about the paseo. Tom Mahood, Traffic Engineer, provided a technical overview during which he advised: The under crossing was selected due to the constraints of where it needs to be located. The platform is being extended by 85' to accommodate the under crossing. This should minimize the potential for Chapman Avenue being blocked by a stopped train. The clearance required for an over crossing would have been far greater than with an under crossing. The security issues with the under crossing were worked extensively with the Police Department and were reviewed with the Committee. ADA ramps will be provided. The bus turnaround is required along with parking for 5-6 buses. There are approximately 1100 boardings each day for the trains. There are approximately 34 Metro Link trains passing through Orange each day and within 18- 24 months the amount of trains passing through is expected to double. Committee Member Woollett asked if Council had suggested an over pass, would an elevator have been recommended? The response was affirmative. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 16 August 2006 Page 3 of 11 Darrell Johnson, OCTA, advised: There was an open house held in late July. More than 3,000 notices were mailed to the same mailing list that was provided for the Depot Specific Plan. Kiosks were set up at the station for 2 afternoons and 2 mornings to obtain feedback from riders. 600 survey responses were received. Inputs from the surveys included: design themes, lighting options, safety enhancements and transportation modes to/from the station. Funding that is available should enable the City to bring local artists to do artwork in the tunnel. The funding is made available through the State transportation program. The program has a very tight set of guidelines. Committee Member Woollett asked when there could be a discussion of materials to be used. The response was "at the next meeting when the project is at 60%." Larry Johanson, Parsons Brinckerhoff Architects advised: There are basically only 4-5 elements: the walls, floor surfaces, railings, lights, and the landscaping. Most of it is part of the station so they would have the same characteristics as the station. They are showing sloped rock walls on the initial plans. Other options were: brick, a concrete finish with brick incorporated into it (similar to what's there now) and stepped surfaces with planters. Lighting options that allow the volume to be turned up for security reasons are now being explored. Landscaping that is low and simple so it doesn't block the view for security reasons is being explored. Vine like species are being reviewed. Committee Member Woollett expressed opposition to the use of brick and concrete for vertical surfaces suggesting the use of river rock and asking if they had given any consideration to segmented block units (around the sides of the ramp) that maybe could have landscaping in them? The response was "not really." Committee Member Woollett added that there is some precedence established around the station for the horizontal surfaces. Committee Member Cathcart expressed concern with sustainability of many planters with irrigation drainage and plant maintenance stating it would be much easier to grow in planters from the top and have the plant material hang down. Janet Crenshaw, OTPA, stated the DRC has pretty much covered it all. She liked the suggestion of the rock on the surface. She expressed concern with the plans for Maple Avenue adding she understood that would be covered later. In conclusion, Ms. Crenshaw stated she thought the light fixtures should be Mediterranean style. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 16 August 2006 Page 4 of 11 Committee Member Wheeler suggested some traditional style vault skylight fixtures (providing a photograph taken from the Internet) and suggested the use of river rock with lights on either side of the entrance. Committee Member Wheeler asked if there was a plan to have any type of cover over the ADA platform? Mr. Johanson replied, "no, they don't typically do it; it could be done, but it would kind of clutter things up." Committee Member Wheeler asked if there would be any advantage to battering or slightly curving the walls in the tunnel to cut down on echoes. The applicant responded there's a technical problem with installing this during the weekend due to rail traffic. Committee Member Woollett interjected it could be accomplished with an artificial surface application. Mr. Johanson agreed and responded they would look into that. Committee Member Wheeler asked if they would be moving the bike storage. Mr. Johanson responded affirmatively but he wasn't sure where it would be located. Committee Member DeWees indicated he had the same question about wanting to have some sort of covering over the ADA platform and asked why it isn't done. Mr. Johanson replied they just don't typically do them on the new stations; however, since a canopy is being removed perhaps it could be relocated. Committee Member Woollett interjected that sometimes wheelchair wheels slip when it's raining and the pavement is wet and he encouraged serious consideration be given to some sort of covering over the ramps-even if it's fabric. Mr. Johanson responded it would have to stay high so it wouldn't interfere with a security concern for openness. Committee Member Woollett responded that the primary view into the tunnel is from the stairs. Committee Member DeWees asked if there was a way to get some sort of art component in the station that is visible from the trains so everyone on the train experiences some sort of art piece. Ms. Hernandez responded they would take a look at it, citing some examples in other stations they had viewed. Committee Member Woollett stated he was quite excited about the paseo idea, as they can be a very strong element that can do a whole lot more for the city than overdoing the under pass. Committee Member Wheeler noted that the current ADA access ramp has a ramp on only one side and the drawings are showing ramps on both sides. He stated that might create a bit of temptation for bicyclists and skateboarders to use the second ramp. Mr. Johanson replied there are quite a few two-way ramps, which eliminates an impediment in traffic. The session concluded with a review of the next steps for this project provided by Ms. Hernandez. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 16 August 2006 Page 5 of 11 2. DRC No. 4068-06 - HUERTA RESIDENCE Applicant is proposing to construct a 1,419 sq. ft., two-story, second unit, and attached 331 sq. ft. garage, on a 7,500 sq. ft., R2-6 residential lot, that has a 1,223 sq. ft. residence and garage. Project is being reviewed under the City's Residential In-fill Guidelines. 3022 E. Pearl Street Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, (714) 744-7224, dryan(a~cityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination Senior Planner Dan Ryan provided a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Mr. Ryan advised this project still has some of the issues remaining from the May 17th DRC meeting and that some of the issues that were addressed are paving, reduction of one enclosed parking space, and the massing. Sayed Ashizafnia, Design Engineer for the project, stated he tried very hard to have the buildings joined together; however, unfortunately by doing so it would get worse than what exists on the designs currently. The concerns cited were it would look like an apartment building and with a modification to the configuration, the open space in the back (where there is a provision for landscape) would soon become an unattended parking area. Mr. Ashizafnia stated he didn't have a problem with the height; he can reduce the pitch as requested. The 4 ft. of landscape requested in the front could also be accommodated. The door is situated where depicted due to the porch to match the front house. The front of the building is stucco; the rear has some panels to match the front. Committee Member DeWees asked if it would be a soft color. The applicant responded affirmatively. No public comment was provided on this item. Committee Member Wheeler suggested moving a parking space forward which would allow for additional landscape and asked why the railing would extend as far as shown. The applicant responded he could shorten it. Committee Member Wheeler indicated that once again the second floor balcony does not appear on the side elevation. The applicant responded there is a solid wall and the open balcony is in the front. Chair Califf asked if there was a privacy problem they were trying to address. The applicant responded "no" and added if they wanted it open, it could be done. Committee Member Wheeler pointed out inconsistencies in the roof again. One shows a shed roof and the other shows a hip roof. A specific example was drawn for the applicant. Chair Califf pointed out that on the side elevation the actual slope comes up higher than the windowsill. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 16 August 2006 Page 6 of 11 Committee Member Wheeler strongly suggested that a new material not be introduced i.e. brick. Instead, mimicking the front house with wainscot was suggested. Chair Califf interjected that the wood (if used) should be wrapped 4' around the corner. Committee Member Wheeler reiterated that the new house should match the existing. The applicant responded he thought there was a request at the last meeting to use brick. The homeowner indicated he was fine with the suggestion. Committee Member Wheeler asked them to check the windows, as there is one missing on the floor plan. Chair Califf pointed out where it appears on the elevation. Committee Member Wheeler suggested the kitchen floor plan be modified to include a door between the kitchen and the laundry. Committee Member Woollett stated he was satisfied with the recommendations and he was not satisfied there was enough attention given to lowering and possibly attaching the buildings. Mr. Ashizafnia responded it would cost too much money to attach the buildings because half of the roof would have to be removed to provide for water flow. Committee Member Woollett disagreed, reiterated the height should be reduced and restated that there are a lot of inconsistencies in the drawings. Mr. Ashizafnia responded he is not going to spend any more time trying to attach the houses and if it is required they should write an official letter. Committee Member Woollett responded he is only one vote and that he could not vote for approval of the project unless the issues are addressed. The homeowner interjected that he is trying to avoid tearing off half the roof from the front house. Committee Member Woollett responded that he didn't think that would be necessary. Mr. Ashizafnia stated the two units would be rented separately like two houses and that -it doesn't make sense to make it like an apartment house. Committee Member Woollett stated his opinion is that atwo-story unit is not justified there and the reason joining them was initially suggested was because this would allow accommodation of the second story. Mr. Ashizafnia interjected there is a two-story unit down the street. Committee Member Woollett stated his position is that he is reluctant to go with a second story and something needs to be done to mitigate the second story. Chair Califf stated that details of the materials and accuracy of the elevations to match the plans is still lacking. From a site planning standpoint he didn't personally mind the way the layout worked but stated when you see it in the elevation it is an abrupt two-story. Chair Califf commented further that the reason for bringing the two units together was to create something that had a lower volume that worked its way back and up so the roof on the front house would visually cut down on the overall mass. Reduction of the plate height over the stairwell was cited as something that should be addressed. In closing, Chair Califf stated: 1) He wasn't dead set against two units but the effect would have to achieve the same objective. 2) All the details, i.e. window trim and fascia materials, need to be clear and called out on the plans. The homeowner responded he was willing to make the necessary style changes to make it work. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 16 August 2006 Page 7 of 11 Committee Member Wheeler asked if they had thought of putting a carport style sloped roof over the surface parking to spread out cone-story element that would break up the abruptness of a two-story box. Mr. Ashizafnia responded they had two carports before. Committee Member DeWees sketched an example on the plans for the applicant. Chair Califf summarized that the two easiest approaches would be to incorporate the carport-styled roof and a reduction in the stair tower. Committee Member Wheeler added opening the balcony to the sides as well as the front (even though it's a shared wall) would help break up the boxing affect. Mr. Ashizafnia responded he would go along with these suggestions. Committee Member DeWees agreed with these suggestions stating he is less concerned with the two buildings than with the overall massing. He added he didn't want to belabor the point of the errors on the drawings errors but stressed the need to have them accurate and reflect the fascia and trim need to match the front structure as much as possible. Chair Califf added the need to include notes requiring an automatic irrigation system. Committee Member Cathcart noted this is not the only deficiency and pointed out: 1) The seeds of the Buckeye Red are toxic. 2) The Rhaphiolepis variety, size, and quantity need to be specified. 3) Quantities, size, and varieties of all other plant materials need to be specified. 4) Specifics need to be provided for grass pavers---are they concrete or plastic? 5) How the turf will be edged needs to be clear. Chair Califf made a motion to continue DRC No. 4068-06 subject to the comments and suggestions made by the Committee. SECOND: Joe Woollett AYES: Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Ashizafnia stated he was confused and asked if they needed to connect the two buildings. The homeowner responded "no" and began recapping for Mr. Ashizafnia what was suggested. Mr. Ashizafnia interjected "but it's not official yet, no one has stated if they have to be connected or not." Chair Califf responded that the Committee had offered some suggestions and assuming they act on them he expressed that he thought it could work as two separate buildings. Committee Member Wheeler stated he should have made it clear that he agreed two separate buildings are acceptable. Committee Member DeWees added that he too is not concerned about two separate buildings; however, the other issues need to be addressed. The homeowner stated they would do their best to correct the drawings. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 16 August 2006 Page 8 of 11 3. DRC No. 4119-06 - BHALLA TRIPLEX A preliminary proposal to demolish a 1,482 sq. ft. non-contributing one-story duplex and construct a new two-story, 4,767 sq. ft., three-unit apartment including covered/enclosed garages. 438-440 S. Olive Street (Old Towne Orange Historic District) Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, 714-744-7224, dryan(a,cityoforange.org DRC Action: Preliminary Review Only Senior Planner Dan Ryan provided a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Mr. Ryan advised that typically this project would have an environmental and Staff review prior to going to the Design Review Committee; however, it was determined it would be useful to obtain design comments at this time and obtain feedback for the applicant. The applicant expressed appreciation to the Committee and Dan Ryan for working with them over time and then stated he would like to address a few of the issues cited; specifically: They calculated the FAR with the inhabitable space and the enclosed garage. He asked if the open parking was covered on top but not on three sides would it be considered part of the FAR? Mr. Ryan responded he would obtain an interpretation of the definition. Because of the required parking there wasn't ample space on the ground level to build the third unit, which contributed to the square footage of the second floor. The applicant committed to rework this to address the massing. The applicant asked if the enclosed garage could be 10'x18'. The response was "not without another Administrative Adjustment." The applicant asked if the replacement trees for the two mature eucalyptus trees being removed could be situated in the front of the property. Committee Member Cathcart responded they would take a look at this. Janet Crenshaw, OTPA, commented that: She was pleased with and very much in agreement with Staff's comments found in the Staff Report. She is very familiar with this area and parking is very much an issue. She sees potential for 16 more cars to be parked in an already overpopulated area. She had several questions on the materials: Where does the brick veneer go? Why ceramic tiles where you'd expect to find windows? Where do the shutters go? She did not like the use of vinyl windows. The size and scale of this project is way out there. The bulk and mass are a deal breaker in her opinion. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 16 August 2006 Page 9 of 11 Mr. Ryan stated that the applicant is also requesting an administrative adjustment for the front setback and one justification that Staff supports in this recommendation would be the fact that later buildings are built at 10' back while newer buildings are built at 15' or 20'. Rather than have this building set back at 20' and the adjacent buildings at 10', Mr. Ryan stated that an administrative adjustment for 20% reduction in the setback would be a compromise between what is required today and what exists currently. Chair Califf asked Mr. Ryan to itemize all the administrative adjustments being requested. Mr. Ryan responded there are currently four (4): 1) front setback 2) parking back-up distance 3) garage parking dimensions 4) landscape standards The applicant asked for clarification of the landscape requirement calculations for the parking area. Mr. Ryan responded he would have to go back through his calculations and review them with the applicant. Committee Member Cathcart stated he concurred that they should eliminate the planter if it couldn't be 4' and he suggested further that they obtain assistance with the landscape plan. Specific examples of inaccuracies on the plans were highlighted. The applicant responded that these are preliminary plans, only intended to show the landscape areas and he intends to obtain the services of a professional to do the next plans. Committee Member Cathcart provided a copy of the irrigation and planting notations to be included on the plans. Committee Member Woollett stated that both the Infill Guidelines and Old Towne Standards are applicable for this project and as such there are some significant changes required to the entire concept. Some examples of how to achieve a significant reduction in the massing were provided along with the suggestion to carefully study the recommendations provided in the Staff Report. Committee Member DeWees stated he agreed the size/mass are too big and offered suggestions to help this i.e. the 8'6" plate on the ground floor could be reduced, change the the depicted on the fascia, flatten the arches on the ground floor, eliminate the use of the cantilevers, modify the detailing around the columns and study the whole street elevation. Committee Member DeWees also reiterated the need to correct the inaccuracies of the plans and requested the next revision of the elevations reflect N/S/E/W versus left and right. In conclusion, Committee Member DeWees suggested that after addressing the massing, the Spanish style detailing should be addressed. Adding to this comment Chair Califf stated most of the residential Spanish style structures in Orange are now really quite simple; the very ornate buildings are now commercial. The applicant stated that the proposed reduction in square footage would be an issue. Chair Califf stated he had some additional concerns with the site plan: 1) The turn area needs to be addressed as it will be very difficult to maneuver as proposed. 2) The paving should be enhanced in the same area. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 16 August 2006 Page 10 of 11 Committee Member Wheeler stated his issues with this project are: 1) The use of cantilevers should be limited to small, second story balconies. Double cantilevers are not a historic form. 2) The excessive use of arch windows. Committee Member Wheeler stated the whole idea of Spanish Colonial or Spanish Colonial Revival is simplicity; there should not be so many complex openings and furthermore, the openings should be coordinated. 3) The drawings are full of inaccuracies. The elevations need to match the floor plans. Someone needs to project the roof correctly on the elevation. Further suggestions provided by Committee Member Wheeler were: 1) The roof should perhaps be changed to a hip roof. 2) A privacy study should be done for the second story windows. In closing, Committee Member Wheeler stated the big words are "simplify" and "reduce". Chair Califf stated vinyl windows are permissible; however, they tend to be white which is a problem with this type of architecture. Painted wood windows are preferable or other options where the profile makes it appear to be a wood window. The applicant asked if they have to mingle appropriately with the 4-story building on the right side and the 6-story building on the left side. Chair Califf responded they don't have to match examples in the neighborhood that don't meet the Standards. Committee Member Wheeler noted in the Design Guidelines for Old Towne, there is a statement that the minimum permitted roof overhang is 18" and he asked if this could be waived for a Spanish Colonial Revival? Mr. Ryan responded affirmatively. Committee Member Wheeler also noted that second and third story exterior staircases are only permitted on accessory buildings in the rear 50% of the main building. Mr. Ryan stated for this project it is more than 50% back so it should be okay. Committee Member Wheeler cautioned the applicant that if they had to rearrange things the stairs could not move much further forward. As an advisory item, no motion was required. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 16 August 2006 Page 11 of 11 REVIEW OF MINUTES: AUGUST 2, 2006 Committee Member Woollett made a motion to approve the minutes of the August 2, 2006 meeting with amendments as noted. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES:Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES:None ABSTAIN:None ABSENT:None MOTION CARRIED. A motion was made by Chair Califf 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.