Loading...
10-06-2004 DRC MinutesCITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES October 6, 2004 Committee Members Present: Jon Califf Craig Wheeler Joe Woollett Donnie Dewees Staff in Attendance: Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager Dan Ryan, Senior Historic Planner Howard Morris, Landscape Assessment/District Coordinator Committee Member Absent: None Administrative Session - 5:00 P.M. The Committee met for an administrative session beginning at 5:00 p.m. The meeting adjourned at approximately 7:10 p.m. Regular Session - 5:30 P.M. A motion was made by Committee Chair Jon Califf to approve the July 21, 2004 minutes subject to the following corrections: DRC #3919-04 -Peter and Angela Santivanez page 2 paragraph 3, sentence 5 amended as follows: Jeff Frankel, also representing OTPA, stated that his comments strictly dealt with the standards, and the standards state that all additions should be in the side or rear- yard out of view from the public and not altering the streetscape. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Jon Califf, Donnie Dewees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: None MOTION CARRIED City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 6, 2004 Page 2 A motion was made by Committee Chair Jon Califf to approve the August 4, 2004 minutes as submitted. SECOND: Joe Woollett AYES: Jon Califf, Donnie Dewees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: None MOTION CARRIED A motion was made by Committee Chair Jon Califf to approve the August 18, 2004 minutes subject to the following corrections: DRC 3921-04 -Thomas Walsh page 6, paragraph 1, sentence 2 amended as follows: At the previous meeting, the applicant was to consider h~~g decYeasing the height of the second floor plate line, and try to accomplish the addition and reconfiguration of the second floor within the existing roofline. DRC 3928-04 -Conoco Phillips, page 9, paragraph 3, sentence 1 amended as follows: Joe Woollett stated that it appeared that a new canopy would be installed on the Tustin location, and wondered if a new canopy would be on the Chapman site, as well, or whether it would just be a re-wrap of the existing canopy with new signage. DRC 3937-04 - Trico Sycamore Medical Plaza page 10 paragraph 1, sentence 2 amended as follows: He explained that there originally was a 15' tank, fell the top of which came right beneath the windows. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Jon Califf, Donnie Dewees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: None MOTION CARRIED City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 6, 2004 Page 3 1. DRC No. 3930-04 - AT&T WIRELESS/KOREAN PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH Installation of wireless communication antenna facility at an existing church site. 681 N. Rancho Santiago Boulevard Staff Contact: Chuck Lau, Associate Planner DRC Action: Recommendation to Planning Commission Chuck Lau, Associate Planner, gave an overview of the project. The proposal is to install a 45' high antenna, stealthed as a mono-pine, with all related equipment screened behind a block wall, and the block wall will match the existing wall. The applicant, Margaret Chang, brought an example of the pine to be used. It was noted that there would be one branch for every 2.5 feet of tree. She noted that all trees were custom-made, and this specific example to be used would be a Canary Island Pine. As this item requires a Conditional Use Permit, Mr. Lau noted that tonight's action would be a Recommendation to the Planning Commission. Chair Califf asked if there was a particular manufacturer associated with the making of this mono-pine. Ms. Chang noted that her client had many manufacturers that they work with, but she believes this one is called Tree Scapes, and she stated that she would verify this. Mr. Califf stated that some manufacturers were better than others, and he would like to know which manufacturer would ultimately be used. Committee Member Wheeler questioned whether the church used the lawn space where the mono-pine would be placed for any other activity. Ms. Chang noted that it was not widely used, and that there were other existing pines on the property which is why this style was chosen. Committee Member Woollett stated that he did not feel that the elevation shown gave the proper relationship between the heights of the trees (the existing pine trees and the proposed mono-pine). Mr. Lau felt that the trees on the elevation had been mislabeled, and referenced the site plan. Mr. Wheeler asked if the faux pine tapered at all, and Ms. Chang's answer was no because it needed to be the same for structural integrity for the antenna. Mr. Califf and Mr. Wheeler did not believe the existing pines were Canary Island pines, and Ms. Chang believed they could do another type of pine if that would be more appropriate. Mr. Wheeler stated that he believed that the stealth antenna that the DRC liked at one of the previous meetings was a pine, and as he recalled, the antenna was very close to the trunk. He asked Ms. Chang whether she knew what the diameter of the array of the proposed pine tree, pointing out that the two provided pictures (one an actual faux pine, the other a simulation) were quite different. Ms. Chang noted that they could always make longer branches at the top to cover the antenna itself, which would be painted green. Mr. Wheeler said that by looking at the specifications on the drawing, you could note that the branch would be 3'4" away from the trunk of the tree, meaning that the diameter of the array is going to be about 6'8". Mr. Wheeler said that the drawing appeared to have the diameter of the array larger than on the actual plan. Ms. Chang said that she would go back and have this fixed. Mr. Wheeler said that the DRC had experience in working with and approving many of these types of trees, and he felt that what he was seeing in the drawings was not consistent, so the DRC would not know exactly what they were approving. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 6, 2004 Page 4 Craig Wheeler asked Chuck Lau how it could be determined, once the faux tree was in place, whether what was actually installed was what was approved. Mr. Lau said that, in this case, at first it would be on the branch count. Mr. Wheeler said that if the DRC was having difficulty understanding the documents submitted (which were inconsistent), then it would be difficult for Mr. Lau to know if what was installed was the correct configuration. Ms. Chang stated that she would go back and have her architects draw up precise diameters of the antenna area, and also call out the extent of the branches at the top as well as the diameter of the array. Mr. Wheeler stated that it would be important to be very specific on the drawings, and also could the DRC receive the written description of the faux pine that Ms. Chang would receive. A motion was made by Committee Member Craig Wheeler to continue the project. SECOND: Jon Califf AYES: Jon Califf, Donnie Dewees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: None MOTION CARRIED City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 6, 2004 Page 5 2. DRC No. 3949-04 -HERBERT LOVE New one-story, single-family residence and detached two-car garage Vacant Lot at 491 N. Cypress Street, Old Towne Orange Historic District Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, Senior Planner, Historic Preservation DRC Action: Final Determination Daniel Ryan, Senior Planner, Historic Preservation gave an overview of the project. He stated that it was for a new 1,979 sq. ft. single-family residence with a 441 sq. foot garage being built on a vacant lot on Cypress Street. The house is designed in a Mediterranean style (one of the major architectural forms found within Old Towne Historic District), and he noted that the Staff Report contained more descriptive details on the materials to be used than noted on the actual drawings. Staff did have a couple of recommendations and suggestions that were noted on the Staff Report. The applicant, Herbert Love, spoke to the recommendations. He stated that he liked double-hung windows, and found several different styles present within the area (and showed examples of these during the meeting to the DRC members), and also he preferred a sand finish for the style, feeling that the pattern was a subjective item. Jeff Frankel, OTPA, said that he was glad that the applicant accepted the wood casement windows and wanted to keep the in-kind materials within the district. He wanted to note that he agreed with most of the staff recommendations, and the tapered chimney is more typical to the style than a straight one. Also, he agreed with the fixed-window for the living room, and the the for the roofing material. Janet Crenshaw, OTPA, agreed with the staff recommendations. She questioned the bathroom windows being so much higher than the other windows. She was wondering if they could be lowered to be even with the top of the other windows, believing that when you saw them at that height in Old Towne, it was a dead give-away to a remodel. The applicant stated that they could adjust it so they were pretty much flush, stating that even though the drawings did not reflect it, the plans did. Ms. Crenshaw also said that it appeared to her that the driveway, from the sidewalk all the way to the garage, was solid cement, with no planting area on either side, and wondered if whether a ribbon driveway would be more appropriate. Mr. Wheeler also felt that this would be a big improvement, in addition to adding planting on both sides of the drive (which is a design standard within Old Towne). The applicant stated that he did not have a problem with any of these suggestions. Mr. Wheeler asked for an opinion on raised floor, versus slab floor. Mr. Frankel stated that they didn't start building slab floors until the late SOs, and if he were to build a home, he'd opt for a raised floor, just for the access and comfort to walk on. Mr. Wheeler stated that there may be egress issues in the bedroom were the windows to be double-hung instead of casement. If there were significant changes to the size of the windows, it was felt that the DRC would need to review this project again. Also, the DRC would like to know exactly what type of window trim was to be proposed. There were numerous examples around Old Towne, but the most common was the stucco mold with the projected sill. Some of the homes do have a wood trim, but it is usually just on the front of the house. Mr. Wheeler City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 6, 2004 Page 6 asked about the stucco texture, noting that the garage said Spanish Lace, and he personally felt that Spanish Lace would be much too heavy. He also asked about the roof tile, was it S the (one piece) or two piece. The applicant stated that he would like to use S tile, but Mr. Ryan had suggested the barrel the -and if that is what staff wants, he has no problem with that. Mr. Wheeler asked how the applicant planned on framing the extended barges, noting that the DRC did not like to see it framed by 2 x 4 outlookers that you see in modern construction. Chair Califf stated that perhaps on a new home it might be more honest to let it be what it is, and Mr. Wheeler felt that it made it look cheaper, without the quality that the other homes in Old Towne had. Chair Califf explained to the applicant that on in-fill development, the Secretary of the Interior standards did allow a bit more latitude, but that the DRC was just trying to be consistent with how it is applied. Committee Member Dewees stated that these comments (by Mr. Wheeler) also addressed his issues. Chair Califf stated that the DRC would like to see the comments, as they relate to the building materials, be spelled out more clearly even in terms of the window type, projected sill, etc. He also noted that the setbacks (garage and rear) had changed since the original table was done in the Staff Report, and he pointed these changes to Mr. Ryan. The DRC members would also like to see a specific picture of what the actual garage door would look like. Additionally, they suggested not using a wood door on the south side, since it would not last due to the sun damage on that side, since there is no protection from the sun due to the parapet wall on that side. The applicant was asked to bring the plans back detailing the materials to be used. To further detail what is being asked for, the DRC members said: (1) check the egress to ensure that the windows you are showing will meet egress requirements, (2) clarify the window trim, (3) specify the texture of the stucco, (4) specify the roof the (bring sample, if possible, or at least catalogue), 5) specify on the drawings what the circular vents are, noting that the DRC prefers the plumber groups as many vents as possible and pokes through the roof with as few as possible, as this keeps the roof clutter down, (6) modify the entry arch on the north side, (7) show the divided ribbon driveway, and (8) check to see if a constant head height can be maintained for the windows. The applicant asked for further clarification on the issue of casement windows versus double-hung, noting that he had heard a couple of different things at the meeting. He would prefer to use double hung. Mr. Wheeler said that the applicant could use either as long as it was consistent, but that he did feel that with double hung the applicant would have more of an egress problem. A motion was made by Committee Chair Jon Califf to continue the project. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Jon Califf, Donnie Dewees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: None MOTION CARRIED City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 6, 2004 Page 7 3. DRC No. 3942-04 - OLSON COMPANY CONDOMINIUMS Eighteen (18) tuck-under, 3-bedrooms - 2 %z bath town homes, each with atwo-car garage. Five (5) onsite guest parking spaces. Three lots at the intersection of Compton Avenue and Manchester Avenue (site of the old fire station and two additional remnant parcels from the I-5 Freeway.) Staff Contact: Christine Kelly, Contract Project Manager DRC Action: Recommendation to Planning Commission Planning Manager Leslie Aranda Roseberry introduced the item, noting that one of the City's consultant's (Christine Kelly, Contract Project Manager) was out of town. She briefly described the project and it's location, noting that it was an earth-toned Spanish Colonial design. As it is near other residential areas, the scale was kept fairly low. Kim Prijatel, VP/Development for The Olson Company, introduced herself and gave an overview of the project, as did Brad Mansfield, Architect with WHA, and Jamie Walton, Landscape Architect. Ms. Prijatel stated the project was selected for this site because it fit a fairly odd-shaped lot, and also fit into the height limitations of the area (adjacent to single- family/single-story homes). Ms. Prijatel further noted that they had met with the community and addressed some of their concerns, and the Landscape Plans had been upgraded based on planning recommendations. Committee Members had the following questions: How would the drive court be lighted? Lights on the back of the garages. Lighting will be low? Yes. Is this specified anywhere? Yes, there were police requirements that were specified. We would want the lighting specified somewhere, whether it's on the elevations or not, because of the glare issue and to ensure that it does not shine into any of the bedrooms, etc. There would probably be lighting on the west end of the 4 Alex, has there been any review of the light-spill onto the neighborhood? Ms. Roseberry answered that there could be no light-spill, which was that the light from the fixtures must be maintained on site. There's some significant elevation differences on the north side, isn't there? There is some grade difference with the mobile home park. I was just wondering whether there would be a retaining wall along there, or haven't the plans gotten that far yet? I believe there is a retaining wall. New wall? Yes, remove and replace, with the permission of everyone around the perimeter. So what will that look like? We would propose either split face or a slumpstone wall. There's a significant cost in doing split face, because if you split a block in two, there's only split face on one side, so it's important to note exactly what will be used. Is there a problem with doing it on one side? It's only a problem if it's a problem to the adjacent property, in this case the mobile home park, and the same would be true over on the west side. Are the any noise impact issues that might affect the appearance of the building? A noise study was done based on freeway and even anticipated noise from truck City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 6, 2004 Page 8 deliveries to the Best Buy, we have upgraded the windows beyond what is the standard. Are the shutters wood or vinyl? They are vinyl, and come in the colors that are noted on the plans. How often do you have to replace the vinyl shutters? About every 10-15 years. The one comment, made in the previous item, regarding grouping of vents should be remembered here. The DRC would prefer to have them on the back, with all of the plumbing vents grouped together Note on the final plans the specific type of trash enclosure (split face, or stucco to match the building). A motion was made by Committee Chair Jon Califf to continue the project noting the Staff Report Comments and the additional DRC comments made (see above). SECOND: Joe Woollett AYES: Jon Califf, Donnie Dewees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: None MOTION CARRIED N:\C D D\P L N G\Council Commissions Committees\DRC 10-06-04 drem.DOC