Loading...
11-01-2006 DRC MinutesCITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES -FINAL Committee Members Present: Jon Califf Bill Cathcart Donnie DeWees Craig Wheeler Committee Members Absent: Joe Woollett Staff in Attendance: Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager Sharon Penttila/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 6:20 p. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 1 November 2006 Page 2 of l0 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. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 1 November 2006 Page 3 of 10 1. DRC No. 4137-06 - LENNAR HOMES Review of the site plan and building plans for 127 town home attached units (continued from DRC meeting of October 18, 2006). 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~a,cityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination A project overview was provided by Planning Manager Leslie Aranda Roseberry during which she advised this item was before the committee on October 18, 2006 and the applicant was asked to provide responses to each of the concerns raised at that meeting. The review of those items along with the applicant response follows: 1) Sheet A-6: Building A was not shown on the site plan. The applicant responded that was correct. RESPONSE: The site plan had been revised and this building was removed from the drawings. 2) 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") RESPONSE: The windows were added to the plan and an alternate option with no windows was added also. The Committee reviewed the revised plans. 3) Sheet A-9: I believe the front elevation for the Plan 3 portion of the complex is drawn flipped. RESPONSE: The applicant advised these were actually drawn correctly as was acknowledged by Committee Member Wheeler. 4) 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. RESPONSE: The plans were revised to match the elevations. 5) Sheet A-9: I am always uncomfortable with an arch that dies directly into a vertical surface without any sort of pilaster projection. RESPONSE: This related to the soffit over the entry door. This was changed to a flat soffit. 6) 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? RESPONSE: A full height louver was added to all the utility doors. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 1 November 2006 Page 4 of 10 7) 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). RESPONSE: This was a typo and has been corrected. 8) 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". RESPONSE: The street scene was primarily what was being addressed as follows: Option 1 remains as it existed at the previous to last meeting. Based on the discussion at the last meeting, Option 2, interior building was flipped. (The Committee reviewed revised plans.) As a result of these changes the buildings on the outside have Plan 3s facing the street with Plan 4s on the inside. This now provides differentiation. The applicant stated that they didn't know if the Fire Department would have an issue with these changes. Chair Califf responded that for purposes of this discussion they would assume Fire will not have a problem with the change and if they do it should initially be discussed with Staff. If Staff then feels it is a sizeable issue they can request the committee to revisit the issue. Ms. Roseberry asked what specifically the applicant thought that Fire might have an issue with. The applicant responded "with access into the courtyard essentially being through a building". Chair Califf asked if initially the access was wide enough for Fire to drive through. The applicant responded negatively. Committee Member Wheeler suggested removal of the roof over the opening on the units where the opening is towards the front. Acknowledging that it wasn't a big issue, Committee Member Wheeler asked if they could do a little more variety and maybe do some hip roofs over the pop outs. No public comment was provided on this item. Committee Member Cathcart stated the landscape recommendations have already been incorporated. Committee Member DeWees asked about the status of the recreation center. Ms. Roseberry responded it was part of the Centex package. The applicant added that Centex provided a conceptual plan for the recreation center at the same time they provided the architecture. Committee Member DeWees recalled the Centex presentation and commented that it was really deficient and since it looked like a preliminary drawing, there was an expectation it would be coming back to the committee. Committee Member DeWees clarified that specifically he was concerned with the exterior elevations. Chair Califf asked Ms. Roseberry to check the file and City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 1 November 2006 Page 5 of 10 take the appropriate actions to have it reviewed by the Committee. The applicant asked for clarification as to what direction the committee was taking based on his opinion that there are two options: Option 1 is what was originally presented in terms of the orientation of the buildings. Option 2 is flipping a few of the buildings resulting in a varied street scene. Chair Califf responded that the Committee would be looking at how their concerns expressed previously were addressed and inasmuch as Option 2 was presented in response to those concerns, it is what would be acceptable, at a minimum. Committee Member Wheeler noted Option 2 is what was shown in their package as the site plan. Chair Califf made a motion to approve DRC No. 4137-06, Option 2 site plan, with the conditions set forth in the previous Staff Report and requested Staff to check into the status of the recreation center and report back. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Joe Woollett MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 1 November 2006 Page 6 of 10 2. DRC No. 4141-06 - MAYORGA RESIDENCE Proposal to construct a new single-family residence with attached garage, and designate the existing single-family residence as an Accessory Second Housing Unit. 441 South Hewes Street Staff Contact: Anne Fox, (714) 744-7229, afox ,cityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination Inasmuch as Committee Member Wheeler did a different project for this applicant earlier in the year, he recused himself. The applicant Dolores Mayorga was detained due to jury duty service; however, requested that Staff proceed with the review unless there were a number of issues in which case she requested Staff to request postponement. Contract Staff Planner Anne Fox provided a project overview. It was noted by Ray Cortez, applicant's representative, that the stairs originally proposed in the garage have been removed and the floor plan of the garage was modified to provide a 20' clearance as requested by Staff. Mr. Cortez stated he was not aware of the location of the water heater being an issue as pointed out by Staff and indicated it could be put in a corner. Chair Califf interjected that the Building Department doesn't want anything in the 20' x 20' area that could be struck or impede the usability. Ms. Fox asked if there was a way to do a recess into the residence to provide a spot for it. Mr. Cortez responded he thought there was sufficient space in the laundry room. Chair Califf stated they could wall mount a tankless heater in the garage as long as it was sufficiently high and the water piping was protected from damage. Mr. Cortez asked for clarification that the FAR is approvable. Ms. Fox responded affirmatively and that the project is just under the maximum. No public comment was provided on this item. Chair Califf stated he didn't have any real issues with the project as presented and he felt it was reasonably compatible with the neighborhood. Committee Member DeWees stated the only concern he had was with the small strip of roof on the north and south elevations appearing to be applied as opposed to having something built out where the wall comes down. Chair Califf noted the top floor was set in 6"on each side. Mr. Cortez responded that although he thought it was somewhat odd, it was recessed at the request of the City. Chair Califf stated it makes the structural design somewhat difficult. Ms. Fox stated perhaps Staff directed this at the counter, and typically the concern is a street scene stepping back and certainly that was accomplished. Further, Ms. Fox stated perhaps the request was misinterpreted. Committee Member DeWees suggested taking the wall plane back the way it was so the building would be City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 1 November 2006 Page 7 of 10 straight up and down. Committee Member Cathcart stated there is a requirement that any new landscaping must have an automatic irrigation system. Committee Member DeWees made a motion to approve DRC No. 4141-06 subject to: 1) Elimination of the 6" step of the second floor, making it continuous and eliminating the low roof portion. It was suggested the applicant also consider putting in a plaster belly around the whole house. 2) Any new landscaping shall have an automatic irrigation system. 3) The three recommendations contained in the Staff Report. SECOND:Jon Califf AYES:Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees NOES:None ABSTAIN:None ABSENT:Joe Woollett RECUSED:Craig Wheeler MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 1 November 2006 Page 8 of 10 3. DRC No. 4157-06 & MNSP No. 0450-06 -WATER WELL NO. 26 Proposal to construct a 330 square foot utility building, a 220 square foot enclosure for an existing water well, an 8' tubular steel fence, utilities, paving, landscaping and irrigation at an existing water well site. 218 The City Boulevard West Staff Contact: Jennifer (McDonald) Le DRC Action: Recommendation to City Council Senior Planner/Environmental Review Coordinator Jennifer Le provided a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. No public comment was provided on this item. Committee Member Wheeler stated there had been so much work done on this project already and he was somewhat surprised it had gotten this far along without the Design Review Committee having a look at it. He added that he thought it looked somewhat out of place as there are no other tiled roof structures around there (except for a restaurant which cannot be seen from this site) and therefore suggested the roof be changed to a standing seam, prefinished metal roof in a nice color. He stated it would be more utilitarian looking and would stand out less as something totally different to the environment. Committee Members DeWees and Wheeler both thought the structure corners should be simplified and suggested something rectilinear. Committee Member Cathcart pointed out an error appears on Sheet L-2 (middle of the page) where it calls out deciduous trees/typical, which is incorrect; there are no deciduous trees. The trees called out are evergreens and the note needs to be removed. The applicant agreed. Committee Member Wheeler stated he had some questions: 1) On the foundation plan and some of the other drawings there is something shown that is called out as meter main and a used GPS and perhaps a curb (though he wasn't sure). 2) #3 calls out wood framing details and he assumed there wasn't any wood framing; however, whatever it is doesn't appear on the elevations so he asked the applicant if it was something visible and if so, what it was. Ms. Le asked for clarification as to the sheet #. Committee Member Wheeler responded it appeared on Sheet S-2. Chair Califf stated it would typically be switchgear, a pull section. Committee Member Wheeler added: 3) In the same location there was something labeled "generator load cabinet" which also City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 1 November 2006 Page 9 of 10 doesn't show up on the elevations. 4) Whatever the items are might block the vents in the wall. The applicant responded that the generator load cabinet is where atrailer-mounted generator would be hooked up in the event of a power failure. The applicant was instructed to contrast the elevations to the site plans. Chair Califf pointed out that on Sheet E-3 there is a 150" wide piece of switch gear that is almost 8' tall and there is nothing on the electrical plan. The freestanding switchgear might be taking the place of this. Consequently, it was suggested that this be confirmed with an engineer and if so, it should be removed. Committee Member Wheeler suggested that due to the number of inconsistencies throughout the drawings, an engineer should review them all. Specifically referenced was: the framing plan, the apparent absence of a ceiling, attic vents are called out yet there doesn't appear to be an attic, it appears someone is planning on putting in multiple ceiling joists in two locations but it isn't being called out anywhere so it needs to be clarified, (see Sheet S-2). The applicant responded they usually don't put in any type of dropped ceiling. Chair Califf stated it appeared they planned on gravity ventilation. The applicant responded there is a power attic vent. Chair Califf made a motion to recommend approval to the City Council of DRC No. 4157-06 & MNSP No. 0450-06 subject to the six recommendations contained in the Staff Report and with the advisory comment to the applicant that perhaps a metal, standing seam roof and a simpler treatment of the eave trim might be more appropriate than the clay tile. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Joe Woollett MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 1 November 2006 Page 10 of 10 REVIEW OF MINUTES: (1) September 20, 2006 2) October 4, 2006 A motion was made by Chair Califf to approve the minutes of the September 20, 2006 and October 4, 2006 meetings with revisions as noted. SECOND: Donnie DeWees AYES: Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Joe Woollett MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT: A motion was made by Chair Califf to adjourn to an adjourned regular meeting on Thursday, November 2, 2006, beginning at 6:30 pm in the Council Chambers for a joint Design Review Committee/Planning Commission Preservation Workshop. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Joe Woollett MOTION CARRIED.