Loading...
10-20-2004 DRC MinutesCITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES October 20, 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 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 9:15 p.m. Regular Session - 5:30 P.M. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 20, 2004 Page 2 2. DRC No. 3942-04 - OLSON COMPANY CONDOMINIUMS No Staff Report included for this item. Plans presented to the DRC at the meeting.) Proposal for an eighteen (18) tuck-under, 3-bedrooms - 2 % bath town homes, each with a two-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 Item continued from DRC meeting of October 6, 2004 DRC Action: Recommendation to Planning Commission Christine Kelly, Contract Project Manager, gave the staff report. This project had been continued from the October 6, 2004 DRC Meeting. The Committee Members had made the following comments at the October 6, 2004 meeting, and the applicants were returning to finalize these items: Regarding grouping of vents: the DRC would prefer to have them on the back, with all of the plumbing vents grouped together Chair Califf noted that the above was made as an advisory comment, because it helped to keep the roofline clean. The applicants agreed. An additional item was carried over from the October 6, 2004 meeting: Applicant to note on the final plans the specific type of trash enclosure (split face, or stucco to match the building). The applicant presented their proposal for the type of trash enclosure and DRC committee members discussed it. It was noted by Committee Members that it was aesthetically more pleasing to have the split face on both sides of the concrete walls. The standard conditions, in addition to the landscape plans, were discussed at the October 6, 2004 meeting. This included changes as to spacing and sizing of the trees in some of the entry areas, and all changes have been made to the final landscape plans. A motion was made by Committee Member Joe Woollett to recommend approval of the project subject to the following conditions: 1. Concrete block walls have the split face finish on both sides. 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 20, 2004 Page 3 2. DRC No.3908-04 -SON LIGHT CHRISTIAN CENTER (Orange Theater) Request to approve vinyl replacement windows, and marquee sign modifications. 172 N. Glassell Street (within the Old Towne Historic District) Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, Senior Planner Item Continued from DRC Meeting of May 19, 2004 DRC Action: Final Determination Craig Wheeler recused himself, as his office is within 500 feet of this project; Joe Woollett stated that he would be present, but not acting upon this issue, as his office is also within 500 feet. Maryann Cazzell introduced herself as the attorney for Son Light Christian Center, and introduced Pastor Joseph Magliato, as well. Ms. Cazzell stated that she had brought in some supplemental material to Daniel Ryan and asked that they be circulated to the Committee Members. It was confirmed that the Committee had received the materials. Chair Califf stated that they had a chance to briefly read through the materials and that they were quite extensive; if, in fact, they were to be considered, he suggested that perhaps more time be given to the issue. Ms. Cazzell was in favor of this. Chair Califf also stated that there were some issues that were beyond the scope of the DRC to determine regarding the applicability of some of the standards. Daniel Ryan, Senior Planner, was invited to give the staff presentation. He noted that this was a continued item from a previous meeting, and that there were two issues before the Committee. One is the replacement windows on the church building, and the other is the marquee itself. He recapped that at the last DRC meeting the members were invited to go and look at the replacement windows, to see the installation/materials and how the windows were viewed both internally and externally, and he stated that this had been done. Mr. Ryan stated that, to clarify, the building was originally listed in the Plaza District as a contributing building, and it is on the inventory of historic structures identified as Building 502, 172 N. Glassell. The applicant, he noted, was looking to modify the existing historic marquee sign, and to get approval for vinyl replacement windows that were installed. Mr. Ryan reviewed the Secretary of the Interior's standards for the treatment of historic properties, and specifically the general ones were identifying, retaining and preserving windows and their functional decorative features from the restoration period. When restoration to a window using the same kind of replacement material is deemed technically or economically infeasible, or when a window has deteriorated beyond repair, then a compatible substitute material may be considered. Mr. Ryan highlighted several restoration methods that were not recommended, noting the Secretary of Interior standards that would cause a historic building to be removed from the Historic Register and that included not replacing windows/doors/sashes, etc., with in kind materials. Mr. Ryan summarized that staff was recommending denying allowing the use of vinyl replacement windows, and that applicant should remove all vinyl replacement windows and reinstall the original divided light wood windows, and/or install new wood windows that match the original period windows. Further, he reiterated that staff's response to the marquee changes were the same as noted in the previous meeting. Mr. Ryan expressed that the Son Light Christian Center had maintained the inside of the building quite well. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 20, 2004 Page 4 Ms. Cazzell stated that Son Light Christian Center had withdrawn the marquee part of the application, but they were requesting retroactive approval of the windows. She said that the church was not aware that they needed permits to replace the windows at the time they were installed, which was why they were requesting retroactive approval. She stated that she had not seen the CEQA standards that Mr. Ryan referenced, and felt that there may be a Brown Act violation in this, and she may need an additional 72 hours to review these materials. Ms. Cazzell felt that Mr. Ryan was reading from a report that she did not have. Mr. Ryan stated that it was a staff report that was copied to the applicant. Ms. Roseberry, Planning Manager, clarified that the DRC would not be making a determination on the CEQA guidelines, and therefore there would not be a Brown Act violation. Mr. Ryan stated that in Ms. Cazzell's letter to the City she referred to the fact that changing the windows would not be considered adverse and cause the building not to be listed in the Historic Register, however the local CEQA guidelines discussed thresholds, and one of the thresholds is replacing windows that do not match with in kind materials. Ms. Cazzell reiterated the applicant's point of view that the replacement windows are far superior to what was originally in place, and that they look very similar to what was there before, with the exception that the second floor windows (facing east) were restored to something much closer to the original ones. She presented additional photographs, stating that she felt there was some concern regarding selective enforcement, if the argument is that anything within the historic district is a historic building and would have to comply with the guidelines, then all of the building should have to comply. She referenced the northwest corner of the plaza where there were louvered windows, which were not original to the time period, and should have been the divided windows. Chair Califf clarified one issue: because a building is within the National Register District, it does not mean that it individually is therefore a historic building. Some of the buildings that Ms. Cazzell referenced may be a modern building within the historic district, and therefore the same rules do not apply. Ms. Cazzell stated that they had made a public records request for documents to see if the church had been notified of the application to convert to a historic district, and she further noted that there may be a constitutional church and state issue, First Amendment, and U.S. and California constitution issue. After stating this, she said that they don't want to get into all of that, they just want to get the replacement windows approved as they are already in and cannot be removed, as far as she knows, without structural damage or great expense to the church. The public was invited to speak: Opposed: Janet Crenshaw, OTPA, 464 N. Shaffer -stated that she was at the last DRC meeting and read the minutes and staff reports, and noted that the applicant had said at the last meeting that the building was not historic, and in fact it is. She applauded the staff recommendations. Jeff Frankel, OTPA, 384 S. Orange -stated that OTPA's response was still the same as at the last meeting. The vinyl windows were installed contrary to the standards and without review, and if the original windows are still available they should be reinstalled; if not, vinyl windows should be removed and windows of in kind material (wood) should be installed in the same design profile as the original windows. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 20, 2004 Page 5 The committee members and Ms. Cazell discussed the quote for replacement of the windows 16,000 for materials, and $9600 for removal and installation). Chair Califf felt that this estimated quote was potentially in the ballpark. The Committee Members discussed a possible time period to allow the repairs to be made. Ms. Cazell asked for a short continuance to review the public records. Chair Califf felt that this would also give the Committee time to review the documents that Ms. Cazell had just submitted. Dan Ryan said that the item had already been continued six months, which was the threshold, so that he would not want the continuance to go on for too long. It was mutually agreed that November 17, 2004 would work for all parties. Ms. Roseberry stated that the agenda packets for the Committee Members go out the Thursday prior to the meeting, so if any additional materials needed to be included for review, they could be incorporated then. A motion was made by Committee Chair Jon Califf to continue the project to the November 17, 2004 meeting. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAINED: RECUSED: Donnie Dewees Jon Califf, Donnie Dewees None None None Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett MOTION CARRIED City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 20, 2004 Page 6 3. DRC No. 3935-04 - GAMALIEL AND BARTHA VASQUEZ Proposal to construct two, one-story, single-family residences. Six remnant and vacant Cal-Trans parcels located adjacent to and east of the Newport 55 Freeway, south of Dana Avenue, and west of Sacramento Street (addressed as: 2220 East Dana Avenue, and 226, 230, 236, 242, 246 North Sacramento Street) Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, Senior Planner Item Continued from DRC Meeting of August 4, 2004 DRC Action: Recommendation to Planning Commission Senior Planner Daniel Ryan introduced the item. He noted that the last time the item was before the Committee, on August 4, 2004, the City's Infill Residential Guidelines, the architectural style, the number of stories, it's harmony and character as far as the neighborhood fit, and whether or not the project was compatible with those guidelines. The applicant previously submitted two single-family homes, both of a 2-story design, and it was a principally single-story neighborhood. The applicant was asked to look at a one-story design, and also to look at the character of the homes to be more reflective of the ranch-style that exists in the neighborhood. What is before the Committee now is a revised project, and he noted there were still issues that the Planning Commission would need to deal with as far as variance requests for lot size and setback, etc. The applicant has designed the units to be more in keeping with the neighborhood style, and it has been reviewed as it relates to the local infill guidelines. Staff still felt that the massing on two substandard lots was overbuilt in relationship to the site and adjoining neighborhood. Staff feels the project, as designed, is overbuilt and, as such, does not conform to the City's Infill Residential Guidelines. The project also does not meet the context for architectural design (two stories) as opposed to its adjoining neighborhood which is mostly ranch-style single-story homes. Chair Califf asked the applicants if they would like to speak. Aaron Johannsen, 153 S. Cypress Street, represented the applicant. He stated that an attempt was made to match the existing character of the neighborhood. He referred to photographs of the surrounding area. He felt the massing was kept to a minimum, as the pitch and depth of the houses was not excessive. The exposure was a concern when the houses were 2-story in nature shading in the backyard, etc.). He does not believe that is a problem now. The houses do not exceed, in massing, any of the houses surrounding the property. He cited the only variance was for lot size on one lot, and lot size and lot depth on the other lot. All other items are in compliance. Committee Member Joe Woollett stated that he felt this was a very difficult site, due to its odd shape and size, to apply the infill guidelines. The overriding violation is CalTrans building the wall, in his opinion. Now there is a neighborhood with a problem lot. He believes that the applicant has responded very well to the items discussed at the last meeting. He has picked up the design treatment of the surrounding buildings. He believes the neighborhood needs to do something about this vacant lot. For every rule, he believes, there needs to be an exception, and City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 20, 2004 Page 7 he believes this lot deserves an exception. Because of the size and shape, one building would be out of character to the neighborhood. He believes this is a good compromise, and supports the project. Daniel Ryan reviewed some of the previous submissions by the applicant, noting that one had been asingle-family residence with an accessory second unit, which he believed was well laid out, even though the primary residence was atwo-story. Mr. Johansen said that this particular design did not fit the applicants' needs for his family (being too small at 640 sq. ft.). Joe Woollett stated that from an aesthetic standpoint, the project meets the spirit of the rule. Any other issue such as lot size, setback and variance, should be left up to the Planning Commission. Craig Wheeler stated that he also felt that the aesthetic criteria had been met as far as the Design Review Committee was concerned. Donnie Dewees agreed with this statement. Chair Califf reviewed with Daniel Ryan that the Planning Commission would hear the issue of the parcel map and variance. A motion was made by Committee Member Joe Woollett to recommend approval of the project as submitted. SECOND: Donnie Dewees 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 20, 2004 Page 8 4. DRC No.3943-04 -SCOTT AND DENISE BOLT Proposal fora 1,160 sq. ft. second-story addition to a one-story Prairie styled residence 260 S. Shaffer Street (within the Old Towne Orange Historic District) Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, Senior Planner DRC Action: Recommendation to Planning Commission Committee Member Craig Wheeler recused himself, stating that he was the architect on the project. Daniel Ryan, Senior Planning, gave the staff report. Denise Bolt and Scott Bolt, the applicants, introduced some photos of the interior that they had taken of some of the refurbishment work they had already undertaken to bring the project back to its original state. Daniel Ryan, in his report, noted that the second story addition was setback to the existing parapet roofline of the first story, and is designed in the same style as the existing residence. The applicant was required to obtain a Conditional Use Permit for a second story addition in Old Towne. He noted that the Prairie styled residence is a contributing structure within the Historic District, and the residence and the garage have retained the original features. The neighborhood is evenly divided between one and two-story residences. There was some discussion as to whether this addition might be better added to the back, but in reviewing the site plans, Mr. Ryan stated that there did not appear to be room to do so. It was recommended in the Staff Report that the addition be constructed in such a fashion that there is the least possible loss of historic materials, and character-defining features should not be damaged or destroyed. Regarding exterior finish, Mr. Ryan felt that the existing stucco finish was in poor shape, and that even if the exterior of the first and second floor were given a new smooth finish it might be recognized as a newer finish and make it more difficult to recognize what is historical and what is new. However, it would give an overall appearance of compatible materials. Staff is recommending that the new addition be set back from the front facade to retain the original building facade with the defining window elements being incorporated into the new design. The second story addition should be set back further from the front facade so that its appearance is more reflective as an addition rather than as part of the original residence. And the applicant should provide a means to make clear what is historic and what is new. Mr. Ryan complimented the design of the project, but he felt it might be a bit large based on some of the setbacks for the other second-story Prairie styles. Scott Bolt stated that they had gathered some samples of stucco finishes, and finding nothing that matched what they believed would be the original finish, stated that it would probably have to be a custom finish. Mr. Bolt discussed the positioning of the interior stairwell, noting that it was set in the interior of the residence as the typical Prairie style homes had been. Any further front setback of the second story residence further diminishes the width of the upstairs room and makes it awkward for usable space. Therefore it might be easier to bring in the setbacks on the sides. Janet Crenshaw, OTPA, 464 N. Shaffer, stated that she felt this was a good representation of the city's history. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 20, 2004 Page 9 Jeff Frankel, OTPA, 384 S. Orange Street, said he personally had not seen a 2-story Prairie configuration, perhaps with more existing in the mid-west. He stated that the OTPA would prefer to see asingle-story addition, and if a second story was to be approved, then a smaller second story would be more sympathetic to the original structure would be preferred. He felt it was difficult to differentiate the old from the new, and stated that it was "too well" designed. Mr. Bolt asked if a slightly different stucco finish help to differentiate the new from the old, or would it add confusion. Donnie Dewees stated that was also his question. Mr. Ryan stated that Staff would like to add that if the applicants did decide to go with a second story, that the first story of the building be photo-documented for historical inventory purposes, and would like this to be added as a condition of approval. Mr. Woollette felt that there would not be too much difficulty in defining that the second story was an addition, even though it might not be apparent when driving by from the street. He felt that the overall character of the historic district was the most important issue, not the details of one of the specific buildings. The consistency of design is what benefits the district. He also felt that it was correct to change the finish of the existing building so that it was more consistent with the historic style. Mr. Woollette also stated that, as Mr. Ryan had pointed out, there was a pattern within the historic district of having larger houses on the corner lots. The fact that the second story was set back from the front did mitigate the impact without jeopardizing the consistency of the style. Jeff Frankel noted that on the plans it indicated completely demolishing the masonry chimney and replacing it. He felt that the OTPA would be opposed to that. Mr. Bolt stated that for height requirements they needed to extend the height of the chimney, and since the chimney had a stucco finish, it could be rebuilt with little overall visual impact. Mr. Frankel felt that the Secretary of the Interior standards addressed the issue of not removing historic masonry fabric. Chair Califf asked if the interior would be demolished, and Mr. Bolt stated that it was not his intention. He wanted to leave the interior intact. Chair Califf asked a question pertaining to the Spanish Lace stucco finish, would it be more appropriate to sandblast it? Mr. Bolt said no, that they wanted to take it down to the wood frame, it needs to be rewired, and they did not want to disturb the interior, take care of plumbing, add additional outlets, etc. Mr. Califf said he felt there was tremendous difficult in structurally supporting a footprint that did not line up with any interior walls, and if it did not require losing the entire ceiling, he would be surprised. Mr. Ryan felt there was more impact on the original structure with this second-story proposal than there might be with other options. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 20, 2004 Page 10 A motion was made by Committee Member Joe Woollett to recommend approval of the project subject to the following conditions: 1. Existing plaster not be removed. 2. Masonry fireplace/firebox be retained unless it is structurally unsound. 3. Provide photo documentation of the existing historical structure prior to any work commencing. 4. If during structural design development, changes to the architectural design are necessary, that those changes be brought back before the DRC. SECOND:Jon Califf AYES:Jon Califf, Donnie Dewees, Joe Woollett NOES:None ABSENT:None ABSTAINED:None RECUSED:Craig Wheeler MOTION CARRIED City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 20, 2004 Page 11 5. DRC No. 3945-04 -CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF ORANGE COUNTY (CHOC) Proposal fora 1,700 space parking structure and site improvements for 200 surface parking spaces. Approximately 400 feet south of La Veta Avenue on the east side of Main Street. Staff Contact: Christopher Carnes, Senior Planner DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission Chris Carnes, Senior Planner introduced the item. He noted that the applicant brought back items to review from comments made at an earlier DRC meeting regarding the proposed parking structure and pedestrian bridge. The change to the pedestrian bridge was the recommendation by the DRC that it be positioned straight across the street instead of at an angle. This has been corrected. A discussion was made about making more prominent the entry features, in terms of material and scale, and the entry features have been doubled in size (made two story). There was also review with the landscape architect about adding planting material along the northerly property line to screen the parking structure. It was determined that due to the requirements for the sidewalk that they could not add landscaping in that area. The public works staff also reviewed that the CHOC sign will not be on the bridge, as private signs cannot be put on structures over public right-of--way. He noted that this would be the DRC's final review prior to recommendation to the Planning Commission. Speaking on behalf of CHOC were Phyllis Nelson, Jason Rupp and David Callis. The applicants noted that they had reviewed the changes and were in concurrence. Committee Member Donnie Dewees asked what had happened to the cypress trees that had been proposed in front of the parking structure. It was noted that they were still there, although grayed out on the proposed plans. A motion was made by Committee Chair Jon Califf to recommend approval of the project subject to standard conditions in the Staff Report. SECOND: Donnie Dewees 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 20, 2004 Page 12 6. DRC No.3949-04 -HERBERT LOVE No staff report included for this item. Plans will be presented to the DRC at the meeting.) Proposal for a new one-story, single-family residence and detached two-car garage Vacant Lot at 491 N. Cypress Street (with the Old Towne Orange Historic District) Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, Senior Planner Item Continued from DRC Meeting of October 6, 2004 DRC Action: Final Determination The applicant, Franklin Love, noted that at the DRC Meeting of October 6, 2004, the Committee Members had asked for the following changes: (1) check the egress to ensure that the windows shown will meet egress requirements, (2) clarify the window trim, (3) specify the texture of the stucco, (4) specify the roof file (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 to group as many vents as possible and poke 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. Daniel Ryan, Senior Planner reviewed the items with the committee members, and noted that all DRC suggestions had been followed. The Committee Members discussed the location of the gate with the fence. Chair Califf noted that depending on the type of gate, and whether it was open or closed, it would help to extend the facade. Mr. Ryan noted that the gate was in the style compatible with the period of the house. Jeff Frankel, OTPA, 384 S. Orange Street, noted that the sill, as it was now presented, looked a lot nicer as a detail on the structure. He also stated that he remembered from the last meeting that it was suggested that the ribbon driveway go all the way back to the slab in front of the garage. The applicant noted that he could do this, and there would be no problem in doing so. Mr. Frankel also stated that he appreciated the fact that the applicant went the extra mile to finalize all the details. Janet Crenshaw, OTPA, 464 N. Shaffer, stated that she still believed that the windows should line up at the top, as she believes they look like add-ons the way they are presented. Mr. Love noted that there was a sink on one and a bathtub beneath the other one. Chair Califf noted that it was actually not that unusual to have them higher on a bathroom window. A motion was made by Committee Member Craig Wheeler to approve the project subject to the following conditions: 1. The window trim style be changed to the style with the projecting sill. 2. The ribbon driveway extend past the house to the concrete pad in front of the garage. 3. The gate be pushed back three or four feet, and reflect a style that is compatible with the house. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 20, 2004 Page 13 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 20, 2004 Page 14 7. DRC No. 3955-04 -BARBARA DANIEL RESIDENCE Proposal for a new two-car detached garage and the conversion of an existing garage into an accessory second unit. 317 N. Cleveland Street (within the Old Towne Orange Historic District) Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, Senior Planner DRC Action: Final Determination Chair Califf indicated he had a conflict and recused himself. Daniel Ryan, Senior Planner gave the project overview. He noted that the existing 491 sq. ft., two car detached, non contributing, garage was converted to a second living unit without plans or approval. The city historic building survey identifies the 1922 Bungalow as contributing to the historic district. The existing 2-car detached garage was constructed in 1995. The project was approved under DRC No. 3050. The applicant is proposing to construct a new 441 sq. ft. detached, 2-car, garage behind the existing residence, and establish the former garage/living unit with a kitchen and bath into a conforming accessory second unit. The existing garage is a mix of wood and vinyl windows. There would also be one additional parking space added between the existing residence and the attached new garage. John Yvon, architect on the project, presented photos and plans showing the existing garage. Committee Member Wheeler stated that the photos showed that the structure was no longer being used as a garage. Jeff Frankel, OTPA, 384 S. Orange Street, stated that he believed that the more appropriate action would be to keep the existing garage structure and use it as a garage, since the general pattern of the street is such that the garage is directly at the end of the driveway. That would allow the applicant to create a living unit where the proposed garage is. Mr. Frankel asked whether the siding would be wood. Mr. Wheeler stated that it was calling for composite. Mr. Yvon stated that the existing doors were T1-11, and since the structure is only 10 years old, it is fairly modern. Janet Crenshaw, OTPA, 464 N. Shaffer, felt that there was quite a lot of cement to be used on the property. She asked what type of siding would be used on the new addition, and was told it would be composite. Ms. Crenshaw felt that it should match whatever material was on the house, so that it was historical. Committee Member Woollett questioned why cooking facilities were being added to the existing secondary structure. Mr. Ryan stated that it was a code issue, and if it were to become a legal accessory second unit, it would need the facilities. Mr. Woollett echoed the OTPA's comments that it made more sense to convert it to a garage (because of its placement at the end of the driveway) and to build the accessory second unit behind the house. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 20, 2004 Page 15 The applicant, Barbara Daniel, stated that her son would be living in the accessory second unit with his two children. The way that the plans were currently drawn would provide for a more secluded yard area for the children. Mr. Ryan also stated that if the garage were to be at the end of the driveway, it would not provide the setbacks necessary for back-up distance, etc. Additionally the side-yard setbacks would not be met if the proposed new garage structure were to be a living unit. Mr. Woollett felt that the garage doors should be the same, for both the new proposed garage and the accessory second structure that is built to look like a garage. The architect for the project felt that was easy enough to change and he would make that change. A motion was made by Committee Member Craig Wheeler to approve the project subject to the following conditions: 1. The new garage doors match the pseudo garage doors on the existing accessory second unit. 2. Revise entry roof cover, making it more a gable-style, supported by projected cantilevered bracketed beams. 3. New windows that are to be added to the existing dwelling be wood instead of vinyl. 4. Provide eating/cooking facilities in living unit. SECOND:Joe Woollett AYES:Donnie Dewees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES:None ABSENT:None ABSTAINED:None RECUSED:Jon Califf MOTION CARRIED City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 20, 2004 Page 16 8. DRC No. 3959-04 -LINCOLN PROPERTIES (CITY PLACE APARTMENTS) Proposal fora 275-unit apartment building, of which 10 dwelling units shall include office space. Approximately 400 feet south of Chapman Avenue on the west side of The City Drive presently used by the Doubletree Hotel for surface parking). Staff Contact: Christopher Carnes, Senior Planner DRC Action: Preliminary Review of Plans Christopher Carnes, Senior Planner introduced the project. He noted that the project was to include two parking structures, one is by contract to provide parking for the Doubletree replacement parking, and the other is to be for the apartments. Ten of the units surrounding the parking structure were designed to be work units, where the bottom floor can be used for commercial or office purposes, with the living units above. Mr. Carnes noted that this was a conditional use application as the property is zoned commercial. The project itself is in compliance with the residential development standards used for high-density multi-family housing. Jack Selman, 144 N. Orange Street, the architect for the applicant, described the walkway system that surrounds the garage, noting that the resident would drive up to the level where they lived and park there. In some cases there is an open 15' area in between the residence and the garage, and the area is landscaped with an open walkway. In some cases it is actually an enclosed walkway opening up onto landscaping. Mr. Selman noted that the project was a classic contemporary which fit into the design of the surrounding structures. Chair Califf asked what sort of work uses were expected in the live/work units that are proposed. The applicant stated that a good example might be professional or creative uses, i.e., interior designers, landscape architects, architects, attorneys, insurance agents or computer technicians, etc. The signage, if at all, would be small professional type signage as opposed to what you would normally see for commercial retail space. Mr. Wheeler asked if there would be any zoning restriction on retail, and Mr. Carnes replied that it is being set up with the appropriate parking (5 per thousand) for retail, it is just not anticipated to be such. Committee Member Woollett asked if the project had been reviewed by the fire department. Mr. Selman stated that is had, and showed the fire department access plan that had been developed to satisfy those requirements. Committee Member Wheeler noted that on the hotel garage parking it appeared that someone could actually get from the parking area (through the railings) into the hallways of the apartment. He wondered if that was correct or even a problem? Mr. Selman noted that the plans might be a bit confusing, there would be fencing on the lower level. He felt that someone might be able to climb over the rail on the upper level, so they would review that area and make it secure. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 20, 2004 Page 17 Mr. Wheeler noted that he was concerned because the materials used on the garages (concrete masonry) were different than those used on the residences, and it seemed to make it more foreign. He suggested that even if the material were concrete masonry, it might be better if it were to have stucco over it. Mr. Selman felt that it might not be a bad idea, and there were several walls where that might be particularly appropriate. He felt that the plans were not detailed to that level yet, but that it might be more appropriate. Mr. Selman stated that they would be providing the DRC members with a full color elevation, to make it more clear for them to understand the different colors, etc. He stated that they would be providing exact colors, in addition to the color renderings. The committee members offered the following suggestions/conditions: Color needs to be defined If textural changes are noted, they need to be clearly identified Provide additional detail to work/live area in order to make it more special in terms of colors, landscaping, materials, etc. Provide additional clarity on some of the parking structure surfaces. Preliminary Review of Plans - No Action Taken City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 20, 2004 Page 18 A motion was made by Committee Member Craig Wheeler to adjourn the meeting. SECOND: Donnie Dewees AYES: Jon Califf, Donnie Dewees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: None MOTION CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. N:\C D D\P L N G\Council Commissions Committees\DRC 10-20-04 drem.DOC