Loading...
10-18-2006 DRC MinutesCITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES -FINAL Committee Members Present: Jon Califf 18 October 2006 Bill Cathcart Craig Wheeler Joe Woollett (NOTE: Not present for Item #6: Harris Addition - DRC No. 4144-06) Committee Members Absent: Donnie DeWees Staff in Attendance: Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager deKoven James, Planning Consultant 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. Regular Session - 5:30 P.M. The meeting adjourned at approximately 8:33 p.m. to the next regular meeting on Wednesday, November 1, 2006. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 18 October 2006 Page 2 of 16 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. 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. The following item was moved to consent: 2. DRC No. 4107-06 -CHAPMAN - FELDNER, LTD. -WEST CHAPMAN CENTER Sign Program for the West Chapman Center. 1707 - 1725 W. Chapman Avenue Staff Contact: de Koven James, (714) 744-7219 jdekoven cr,cityoforange.or~ DRC Action: Final Determination A motion to approve this item by consent with the Staff recommendations was made by Bill Cathcart: SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Donnie DeWees MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 18 October 2006 Page 3 of 16 1. DRC No. 4008-OS - TUSKATELLA CENTER Site plan review for a proposed remodel to an existing 153,763 sq. ft. neighborhood commercial shopping center. 1303 - 1549 E. Tustin Avenue Staff Contact: de Koven James, (714) 744-7219 ldekoven(a,cityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination Planning Consultant deKoven James provided a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. The applicant added they have created a dramatic change to the look of the center. It will have a Mediterranean look and a 39'clock tower. The overall center will be modernized; however, there are no changes to the square footage. No public comment was provided on this item. Committee Member Wheeler stated his biggest problem was they didn't provide plans that show detail of what is being proposed and he said he would like to see a floor plan so they have a record of what is approved. Chair Califf added that he didn't find anything wrong with the scheme; however, he concurred with Committee Member Wheeler that they would need to have the detail. The applicant responded that he thought they were already somewhere within the City offices and he would get copies to the Committee. Committee Member Cathcart stated he would like to see the landscape plan. Committee Member Wheeler asked if signage was part of this submittal. Mr. James responded it was not. Committee Member Wheeler stated he would like to see a set of drawings and a materials board prior to the meeting, which would speed things up. He also stated that the roof plan must show parapets. Looking at the color renderings Committee Member Wheeler stated that the green color seems to jump out. The applicant responded when it's applied to the stucco it tones it down. Chair Califf made a motion to continue DRC No. 4008-05. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Donnie DeWees MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 18 October 2006 Page 4 of 16 2. DRC No. 4107-06 -CHAPMAN - FELDNER, LTD. -WEST CHAPMAN CENTER Sign Program for the West Chapman Center. 1707 - 1725 W. Chapman Avenue Staff Contact: de Koven James, (714) 744-7219 jdekoven(a,ci oforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination A motion to approve this item by consent with the Staff recommendations was made by Bill Cathcart. No public comment was provided on this item. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Donnie DeWees MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 18 October 2006 Page 5 of 16 3. DRC No. 4109-06 -PACIFIC GROVE ESTATES Proposal for six new single-family residences. Continued from June 21, 2006 DRC meeting. Vacant property, west of Esplanade Street and east of Woodland Street, between La Veta Avenue and Fairhaven Avenue. Staff Contact: Sonal Thakur, (714) 744-7239, sthakurncityoforange.org DRC Action: Recommendation to Planning Commission Assistant Planner Sonal Thakur provided a project overview during which she highlighted this project was before the Design Review Committee on June 21St during which four minor elements were raised that needed to be addressed. In addition, she highlighted that MND 1767-06 was provided to DRC for their review and consideration. The applicant conducted a review of those four elements: 1) Modifications to Model # 1: The modification was required to provide a privacy screen, which has been accommodated by the creation of a solid panel barrier. 2) Comparative heights on the lots with the properties to the West: At no point does the finished grade extend more than 12" above the grade of the Eichler homes. Line of sight drawings were shown to illustrate there is no visual access from the outdoor patio area. 3) Show design of the fence around the perimeter of the development: The existing fences are the biggest barriers. Chair Califf asked if there were any other changes made to the homes other than to Model #1. The applicant responded "no". 4) Provide greater conformance between the plans and the elevations: The applicant stated they were planning to appear before the Planning Commission; however, they have not been put on the Planning Commission agenda. He also stated the grading is almost completed and they fine tuned elements the Design Review Committee had stated were necessary. Committee Member Woollett stated, "you refined it but you hadn't defined some of those things before". The applicant responded they studied grading, drainage, etc. Committee Member Woollett stated, "So as you defined it you took into consideration what we had stated here before?" The applicant responded "absolutely". Chair Califf asked if they were doing any landscaping in the rear yards. The applicant responded that one of the conditions of sale will be the homeowner is required to do the rear and side yard landscaping. Further, he pointed out where the common areas are situated as those will be taken care of by the HOA and he noted they would be doing the front yards with California natives and some Mediterranean's for color. All plant material is drought tolerant. Committee Member Cathcart acknowledged they had done a fine job in defining the plant materials and commented City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 18 October 2006 Page 6 of 16 further that the HOA should select a landscaping company that is familiar with handling California Natives, as they generally require someone with experience to care for them in the infancy stages. He suggested that a 6-month maintenance window by an experienced landscape company versus 90 days would be more appropriate. Public comment was provided as follows: Diana Nichols. address on file stated: She has lived in the neighborhood for 9 years. There is trash dumping and brush growth there which has been a continuous problem. She believes building these homes in this area is an excellent plan. These homes will be a benefit to the area and will compliment the Eichler homes. The value of the homes in her neighborhood will be improved by the addition of these homes. She is 100% supportive of this project. She would like to know who is responsible for maintenance of the right of way. Brian Jacobs, address on file stated: He is speaking on behalf of the Fairhaven HOA. Page 3, Paragraph 3 states: "The Eichler Tract sits at a similar elevation to the subject site and residences in the area are 3,000 sq. ft and 14 ft. high." In fact the Eichler Tract sits at a lower elevation to the subject site and the residences in the area are 2,000 square feet and typically 9 feet high with occasional peaked roofline (height at peek of 11'5"). He objected to the Administrative Adjustment to allow the creation of lots with lot widths less than 50 feet. The 5' side yard setbacks are not consistent with the nearby Eichler tract, which typically has side setbacks of 7' on the side, which has sleeping quarters and 15' on the side, which has living quarters. Wider lots are the rule with 2,000 sq. ft. houses on an 8,000 sq. ft. lot for coverage of 1 to 4. The proposed Pacific Grove Estates Tract is approximately 1 to 2 coverage. Affected Eichler homeowners were promised a review of the elevation and sight lines of the proposed homes and they were not found in the report. He strongly objects to the second story mezzanine, as homes in the immediate area are one- story, without exception. Conservation of wild life in the area has not been addressed. In the matter of Cultural Resources, 5(a), the building height, and square footage for the Eichler Tract are incorrect (item 1) and the proposed homes are not compatible with the adjacent homes. Elevation and sight lines have not been physically or graphically demonstrated. In the matter of Hazards and Hazardous Materials, 7(b): An independent review of the liability and hazards involved is requested. The neighboring homes need to be warned of the dangers and an emergency plan should be ordered and made available. Regarding Hydrology and Water Quality, 8(a-p), the addition of paved streets and house lots puts stress on the existing system which was designed for the existing configuration and doesn't include those contingencies. Historically this has been a problem. Consideration needs to be given to the stress added by the development above the site. The neighboring community to the east is higher so the run-off needs to be addressed. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 18 October 2006 Page 7 of 16 In conclusion Mr. Jacobs stated this is an abbreviated list of concerns and he asked the committee to reconsider approval of this application. Dr. Harve.~y, address on file stated: He has a series of disconnected concerns. The trail (Fairhaven to LaVeta) is marked with white striping and he is concerned that it is made with decomposed granite. He wanted to know whether the trail would be paved over and have a white line/path painted on it. He prefers the rustic look. Will the trail be closed to vehicle traffic? What controls will be in place to eliminate vehicle traffic from Fairhaven? Who will maintain it? How will emergency vehicles access? Will current homeowners have access to do maintenance and tree trimming? The pipeline is a concern. He doesn't care what KM says, he wants assurances the pipeline can be accessed so it can be repaired if it leaks or breaks. There are 3 homes in the area that have been susceptible to flooding so he's concerned about the grading plan and wants assurances that it will have no negative impact on the improvements that have already been done by the City. Which direction do the utility and sewer lines run? What are the assurances there will be no negative impact to the surrounding residents by the installation of these lines? John Welty, address on file stated: He and his wife are pleased something nice will be done with the subject property. He was there when the sewer lines and the pipelines were installed. They are heavy gauge and he is confident they will be accessible for any required repairs. He wants to know who will pay for maintenance of the landscape. The applicant responded to some of the concerns as follows: The common walkway was categorized as a "multipurpose" walk by Public Works. If it turns into a bike lane it would be paved. There will not be any vehicle access from the Fairhaven side (other than Police and Fire vehicles as may be necessary). Trash access will be via a modified hammerhead. A lot of time was spent on the grading plan. None of the water will flow as surface runoff onto Fairhaven. A lot of the concerns expressed at the first meeting have been addressed with care by the developer. Committee Member Cathcart stated he was very pleased with the landscape plan and suggested the pomegranate specified be the ornamental pomegranate. The owner of the property stated he had met with a lot of the Eichler homeowners and stated that the comments made by Brian Jacobs did not reflect the sentiment of many of those homeowners, as many are supportive of the plan. He offered assurances that great care would be taken to City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 18 October 2006 Page 8 of 16 complete the project to be aesthetically pleasing to the neighboring Eichler homeowners. Ms. Thakur stated Staff had raised a concern that the garage door should be centered and that change is still not reflected on the plans so she asked for Design Review Committee comment. Committee Member Wheeler responded that the house is so asymmetrical that he rather liked the current positioning. Committee Member Wheeler asked where the air handler is located. The applicant responded it is on the roof, completely hidden from the houses on the hill and the Eichler homes and it will be no higher than 42". Committee Member Wheeler stated the slope information (A2.2) seemed to be incorrect. The applicant responded it was a typo and would be corrected. Committee Member Wheeler stated he really liked what they were doing and added that his biggest concern was how real the drawings are. For that reason he wanted to impose a strong condition that the project comes back again to the Design Review Committee prior to going on to the Planning Commission if Staff starts to see differences between the presented drawings and the working drawings. The applicant replied they are ready to submit for plan check and some changes to the windows on the elevation were required. Committee Member Wheeler stated the window changes may cause egress problems and the parapet heights needed to be clarified. Furthermore, he asked where the ducts are on the roof plan. The applicant responded they are presently going through design development. In conclusion Committee Member Wheeler stated he was confident they would do things nicely. Committee Member Woollett stated sometimes the process stifles creativity and he didn't want to do that in this case. He stated he thought what he had seen thus far was outstanding and that the applicant had been very responsive thus far. Chair Califf noted that the committee's basis of concern is that what may seem insignificant to one is sometimes substantial to another and it was agreed that it will be Staff's decision as to whether the project needs to come back to the Design Review Committee. The applicant responded he felt very comfortable with bringing the project back as may be deemed necessary. Howard Morris, Senior Landscape Coordinator stated the trail with the boundary noted is the responsibility of the HOA and outside that boundary the City will maintain it. Mr. Jacobs asked about lighting and landscaping? Mr. Morris responded there would be no lighting and a preliminary landscape plan has already been submitted. Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to recommend approval of the proposed project to the Planning Commission with the recommendations outlined in the Staff Report and two additional conditions: City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 18 October 2006 Page 9 of 16 1) Staff carefully reviews the drawings and if there were significant changes, the project would be brought back to the Design Review Committee. 2) Landscaping notes would be added to the plans. SECOND: Joe Woollett AYES: Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Donnie DeWees MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 18 October 2006 Page 10 of 16 4. DRC No. 4130-06 -RUDAT RESIDENCE Proposed conversion of an attached workshop into an accessory second-unit, including the addition of a 48 sq. ft. bath addition on the rear of a 1919 Bungalow. 444 S. Center Street, Old Towne Orange Historic District Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, Senior Planner, 714-744-7225, dryan(a~,cityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination Senior Planner Dan Ryan provided a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. The applicant's architect, Susan Secoy, stated: The biggest change is in coverting the workshop to an apartment. There is a new recessed entry at the northwest corner. They will be using a residential style door (a picture of the custom fabrication was provided along with photographs of the existing sliding doors). They are working with a carriage house type design. Material samples were provided that included materials currently used on the workshop. Public comment was provided as follows: Phillip Turner, address on file stated: Use of the property is not consistent with what they had been told. Both units are connected, shouldn't they be disconnected? The primary residence is 1-1/2 story, the secondary unit is 1-story. The roof lines match. Some work has already been done (sewer access to the second unit). This implies this project will fly through the approval process. This project will create more traffic. Parking may be a problem as it is already very limited. (He noted this is a Planning Commission issue.) He is a neighbor that doesn't want more residences added to the area. He has doubts the applicants are primary residents. Jeff Frankel, OTPA stated: He wanted to clarify this was a final determination and the project would not go to the Planning Commission. Since the project was approved in 1992 his comments would relate to only what is being added now. He had questions about the rear elevation: are they trying to assimilate a carriage house? Response provided by Ms. Secoy was: "in style". What is the distance from the main to secondary structure? Response provided by Ms. Secoy was: "6 feet". The house looks really nice and appears to meet all requirements i.e. open space, parking, etc. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 18 October 2006 Page 11 of 16 Corrine Schreck stated: The entry treatment will have to be changed. She owns the house next door. There are so many problems with the alley. Someone should pull a police report; they would see there have been graffiti issues and robberies. With respect to the alley, Ms. Secoy showed what is proposed versus what exists. Chair Califf asked what they are proposing in the rear area -open or gates. Ms. Secoy responded they would have chain link fencing with a sliding gate for security. Chair Califf suggested in the cutout entry area they could improve the treatment by using a traditional beam and column treatment, as you would see on a porch. Ms. Secoy responded she intentionally kept it understated and will wrap the ends. Committee Member Wheeler interjected another solution would be to use double or triple posts. Chair Califf noted the door provides egress to the bedroom and asked if they considered putting a window in it. Ms. Secoy responded they hadn't but it was a good suggestion as otherwise it would be dark unless they eliminated the door and put in a window. Chair Califf stated that may not meet egress. Committee Member Woollett stated if the door swings out the screen would need to be on the inside. The applicant responded the door would be changed. The applicant asked Ms. Secoy why they don't put single hung windows towards the porch. Committee Member Wheeler stated they may still want to put windows in the door and he noted a window schedule was not provided and that tempered glass would be required in the door. Committee Member Wheeler stated his biggest concern was they needed some sort of demarcation. He suggested a plane change. Ms. Secoy responded she was aware of this requirement and thought the new roof element was enough. The discussion continued on preference and concluded with Committee Member Wheeler stating small, clean trim board would be sufficient. Committee Member Cathcart stated the standard landscape notes (copy provided) need to be put on the drawings and it should be made clear on the site plans that automatic sprinklers are required. Committee Member Woollett stated the exposed rafter tails must match the existing. Chair Califf made a motion to approve DRC 4130-06 subject to Condition 4 in the Staff Report and (4) additional conditions: 1) Aline of demarcation is provided at the junction of the bedroom to the existing structure. The line of demarcation can be trim board or reveal. 2) A window facing to the interior can be added or glass can be added to the existing door. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 18 October 2006 Page 12 of 16 3) In lieu of (3) in the Staff Report, make a notation on the drawings that automatic sprinklers are required. 4) The recessed entry is acceptable with treatment to the column. The column should be wrapped and larger head trim provided. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Donnie DeWees MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 18 October 2006 Page 13 of 16 5. DRC No. 4137-06 - LENNAR HOMES Review of the site plan and building plans for 127 town home attached units. Del Rio Planned Community -Planning Area No. 4 (west of Glassell Street and north of Lincoln Avenue) Staff Contact: Leslie Roseberry, (714) 744-7221 lroseberry_(cr~,cityoforan~g DRC Action: Final Determination Planning Manager Leslie Aranda Roseberry provided a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. No public comment was provided on this item. Committee Member Wheeler provided the following comments: Sheet A-6: Building A was not shown on the site plan. The applicant responded that was correct. Sheet A-8: There seem to be some windows missing on the 1St level plan in the front wall of the den in the Plan 4s. (Same applies for Building "C") Sheet A-9: I believe the front elevation for the Plan 3 portion of the complex is drawn flipped. Sheet A-9: The windows shown on the rear elevation for the Plan 4 kitchen /family areas do not seem to match the floor plans. This note applies to all of the remaining elevations. The applicant responded this would be addressed on the construction drawings. Sheet A-9: I am always uncomfortable with an arch that dies directly into a vertical surface without any sort of pilaster projection. Sheet A-9: The utility cabinets are such a prominent element on the street elevations that I really think we should try to do something to help them out. At least couldn't we use full height louver doors? Sheets A-12 & 13: I think that the callouts for the plan numbers on the upper part of the sheet are reversed. (i.e. Plan 4 rather than Plan 4R). Sheet A-17: My biggest problem with this project is the almost total lack of variety as one moves along Linden Drive. Every Building "E" (and I presume every Building "F") looks the same. Although the end elevations have some enhancement, it is always the same. What would happen if rather than mirror one side of each complex to the other, we would rotate one side so as to face the other? This would mean that at least each complex would have one Plan 3 and one Plan 4 end elevation. (Committee Member Cathcart pointed out that this suggestion gives more privacy.) So, rather than have the back access opening smaller than the front, each would be the same size but each would be larger than now shown and each would be offset from the other to give a bit more variety. Then how about some variations in how these access areas are handled? Some could have archways; some might have trellises, some perhaps just some low walls and planting. In addition, I would like to see a few different packages of enhancements to the end elevations for Buildings "E" and "F". City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 18 October 2006 Page 14 of 16 A discussion ensued about handicap access and it was determined the suggested changes would not have any impact on the handicap access. The applicant expressed concern that the 25' setback may not be achievable with these proposed changes and a change in the layout may eliminate the sense of community; however, they would look into it. Other suggestions to create variety included: different roof forms on popouts and arched windows. Chair Califf stated the enhancements on the street side are evident and asked what was being done to the elevations to create variety. The applicant responded they would vary the landscape. Committee Member Wheeler pointed out that would not be a permanent solution. Committee Member Cathcart pointed out there wasn't enough room to create the requested variety through the landscaping plan and stated that he liked the random look they have on the plans presently. Committee Member Woollett inquired what the columns were made of on Elevation F. The applicant responded "wood". Committee Member Wheeler stated the shutters should appear as though they can open and close. Chair Califf concluded stating he would like the applicant to explore flipping the buildings. The applicant responded that they would be amenable to a condition of that affect. Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to continue DRC No. 4137-06. SECOND: Jon Califf AYES: Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Donnie DeWees MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 18 October 2006 Page 15 of 16 6. DRC No. 4144-06 -HARRIS ADDITION Proposed single-story 967 sq. ft. addition to an existing Eichler residence. 1078 Granada Drive Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, Senior Planner, 714-744-7225, dr.~ra,cit. o~ge.org DRC Action: Final Determination Senior Planner Dan Ryan provided a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. The applicant added the owner loves Eichler homes and plans on doing a meticulous restoration. They will be using the same windows and want to keep as much of the same material as they can from the existing residence. Committee Member Wheeler asked about the shower. The applicant responded it would be eliminated. Committee Member Wheeler stated it looks like they are doing a very good job. No public comment was provided on this item. Committee Member Cathcart commented that a notation should be made to the plans that an automatic sprinkler system is required. Chair Califf made a motion to approve DRC No. 4144-06 with the recommendations contained in the Staff Report and a notation made to the plans that an automatic sprinkler system is required. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES:Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Craig Wheeler NOES:None ABSTAIN:None ABSENT:Donnie DeWees, Joe Woollett MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 18 October 2006 Page 16 of 16 REVIEW OF MINUTES: There were no minutes to review at this meeting. A motion was made by Chair Califf to adjourn until the next regular meeting on Wednesday, November 1, 2006. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES:Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Craig Wheeler NOES:None ABSTAIN:None ABSENT:Donnie DeWees, Joe Woollett MOTION CARRIED.