Loading...
11-03-2004 DRC MinutesCITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES November 3, 2004 Committee Members Present: Jon Califf Craig Wheeler Joe Woollett Donnie Dewees Staff in Attendance: Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager Christopher Carnes, Senior 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 6:55 p.m. Regular Session - 5:30 P.M. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 3, 2004 Page 2 1. DRC No. 3941-04 - AVELAR RESIDENCE Addition to single-family residence exceeding 50% of the area of existing residence. 614 S. Fairmont Way Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, Senior Planner DRC Action: Final Determination Item Continued from September 1, 2004 DRC Meeting. The item was introduced by Planning Manager, Leslie Aranda Roseberry. She noted that this item had been continued from a past DRC meeting where the DRC had asked for some revisions. Staff reviewed the project and believed that the revisions were made, and are recommending approval at this point. The following comments were made by the DRC members: The plans show apopped-out form, it looks like it's turning the corner, but on this elevation it does not appear to carry it through. The existing house has rock up to about 3' and it was decided to leave it and just continue just the front and the side of the house. So the plans look like it will be stucco, but what you're saying is that's not what you mean, it's going to be brick. We don't know what we want to do, make it stucco or just continue with the rock all the way through. This is brick, right now. Yes, it's brick, a tan color, painted by the previous owner. It's a planter in front of the house. Do you know what's under that tan paint? Its just brick. Did you give any consideration to blasting that paint off of there and having it be the natural brick? We haven't decided yet, we're going to do something. The architect didn't note that we're continuing the brick. My thinking is if you're going to continue with the brick, you should blast the paint off the brick in the front so it looks the same. Yes, we agree. It will be consistent all the way around. If you sand blast the brick, it will look sand blasted, so you'll have to sand blast all the way around, including the new brick. You could use some of these removers and clean it all off, then you won't have the blast texture to deal with. It's just a matter of personal preference. On another matter, it doesn't look like the roof plan matches the elevation as to the height of certain elements, so it should be made consistent on both. What we're approving is based on the elevation. It should also definitely be called out that it is the flat tile. And since you are taking out one window and adding another (one is an egress window), the sill height should be confirmed on the site elevation. There was no public comment on the item. A motion was made by Committee Member Craig Wheeler to recommend approval of the project subject to the following conditions: 1. It should be specified that flat the should be used. 2. Brick material at the base of the home be added to the small section on the left side of the garage. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 3, 2004 Page 3 3. The elevations, as presented, govern over the roof plan where the conflict occurs between the two. 4. The projecting base shown on the elevations shall be brick to match the existing. SECOND: Joe Woollett 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 November 3, 2004 Page 4 2. 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 Item Continued from DRC Meeting of October 6, 2004 DRC Action: Recommendation to Planning Commission Chuck Lau, Associate Planner, introduced the item. He noted that this item had been continued from the DRC meeting of October 6, 2004. The issue at the previous meeting was ensuring that the faux pine tree that was presented is exactly the one that is received and approved. Mr. Lau introduced Laura Bishop, who has assumed responsibility for this job from Margaret Chang (who presented at the last meeting). Two sets of drawings were presented. One is the architectural drawing showing a top view and diameter of the arrays (where the antenna that will stick out), and it shows that the branches actually stick out beyond the antenna to hopefully screen it better. The second is the structural drawing which gives a more accurate representation of what the tree will look like once it is installed. Committee Member Wheeler explained to Ms. Bishop that this review was triggered because the picture showing the elevation of the tree wasn't to scale, so that brought up concerns. Committee Member Dewees stated that Ms. Chang was going to bring back a more accurate photo. Ms. Bishop said she did have a photo of an existing tree, it is not exactly the tree that will go in for the project. Mr. Wheeler noted that there was now a discrepancy between the actual length of the antenna rays and its configuration plan. Ms. Bishop stated that as far as the drawings go, if the DRC wished to extend approval with the condition that ensures x-amount so far beyond the antenna rays, or are x-distance from the poles, we can definitely do that. In order to make it a more pyramid-shaped tree (so there isn't clumping at the top to hide the antenna) it would extend the height of the tree to 51 feet. Ms. Bishop apologized for the inconsistency of the antenna shapes from what is shown on the antenna configuration. She recommended going with the 6' above the antenna top, to give a more natural shape to the tree. She also suggested that they could provide a branch count table tree specified exactly how many 12-foot, 8-foot branches, etc., would be on the tree, and how many branches there would be. Chair Califf noted that the specifications showed pine bark to top of tree. Ms. Bishop said that would make it quite an expensive tree, she's never done that before, and typically it is just pine- bark to where the branches start. She'd prefer to back that out of the design, if possible. A motion was made by Committee Member Joe Woollett to approve the project subject to the following conditions: 1. Size and shape of the antennas to be as shown on sheet S-1. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 3, 2004 Page 5 2. Height at the top of the branch of the tree be 51 feet. 3. Branches to extend at least two feet out from the antenna bases. 4. Shape of the branches be tapered as shown on sheet S-1. 5. Faux bark to extend to the bottom of the branches. 6. Branch count table be provided to Planning Commission. 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 November 3, 2004 Page 6 3. DRC No. 3956 -Jay and Brenda Rumbaugh Construction of an accessory second dwelling unit. 702 E. Collins Avenue Staff Contact: Christopher Carnes DRC Action: Final Determination Chris Carnes, Senior Planner, gave an overview of the project. He noted that the item was before the DRC due to the In-Fill Ordnance adopted by the City last year. Staff's review of both the building addition and the accessory unit found no concerns regarding scale and mass and building materials for the addition to the main residence. There was an exception on one item on the accessory unit, and that was that the applicants were using a gable roof instead of a hip roof and that the existing residence and garage have hip roofs. Staff is recommending the use of a hip roof on the accessory unit. The applicant noted that the architect put the gable roof on the accessory unit (which is not visible from the street) to save costs and is much simpler from a construction standpoint. The applicant also noted that they had made a decision to note have the property surveyed, and were in fact moving the accessory unit one foot further. Chair Califf stated, that as an advisory, the applicant should check with the Building Department, because they have a tendency to want certifications on a detached structure as to where they are versus the property line. They might not require that, but in many cases they do, so the applicant is advised to ask the question. The Committee Members had the following questions/concerns: The existing house has kind of an unusual eave detail, will that be matched in the new construction? There's an overhang, basically over the entire existing structure that extends the roofline beyond the wall line. There is a molding that is used, and we will go ahead and match that. Will the stucco finish match the original? Yes. How about the window trim? We're putting vinyl windows that are single hung, like the windows that are there. If you put a stucco mold in, it will at least match the detail. If you painted the existing windows to match the vinyl windows (which will be white) it would look better. We will be painting everything to match. Are the new windows divided? The look of them will be, they are double paned, and will have the spacers installed inside. Appearance-wise, they'll be very similar. Preference would be to have a hip roof, this helps to unify the whole feeling of the project, with the three structures being the same. Whenever there are add-ons within the City, the one thing that is asked for is consistency. That would allow you to duplicate the soffets and overhang treatment of the house. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 3, 2004 Page 7 A motion was made by Committee Member Joe Woollett to recommend approval of the project subject to the following conditions: 1. The roof of the accessory structure be hip-type roof to match the existing house with the same roofing material, eave design and eave molding. 2. The windows of the existing building match in color the vinyl windows to be installed in the new accessory structure. The applicant's builder also brought up the following points: The architect designed the addition, which is on a foundation with 2 x 6 joists on 24-inch centers. That's going to have tremendous rebound on that floor. We want to change that to 2 x 6's on 16-inch center. Chair Califf noted that normally that does not come before the DRC and that would be the purview of the building department. The architect also made a couple of mistakes on the roof sheathing that has been corrected. 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 November 3, 2004 Page 8 4. DRC No. 3791-02 -Pinnacle at Uptown Apartments Final color, material ,and landscape review fora 460-unit apartment complex. 3001 W. Chapman Avenue Staff Contact: Anna Pehoushek DRC Action: Final Determination The item was introduced by Anna Pehoushek, Acting Principal Planner. She noted that the project had been approved by the City Council on January 13, 2004. It is coming back before the DRC for review of final color, material and landscape plan and the headlight barrier in the interface areas between the parking structure and the apartment corridors. She noted one item that was mentioned during the administrative session that has come about since the packets were distributed, is that the applicant did meet with the adjacent office condo, and worked out an alternative landscape treatment with the shared property line along the west. BRE Properties, the applicants, introduced several members of their team: Ken France, Development Director on the project; RC Alley, Architects Orange; and Rick Polhamus, Landscape Architect. Using proposed drawings and architectural details, they gave an overview of the project to the DRC members. Submittal of trim details was required as a condition of approval for the Pinnacle Apartments project in order to ensure a high level of architectural articulation and relief. The details were provided and were discussed. Mr. Alley gave descriptions of the headlight barrier wall near the parking garage (noting that none of the apartments faced this area, all faced interior courtyards). The wall is made of a 42" masonry wall with an exterior plaster to match the rest of the building. He also went into detail on the roof plan and penetrations, noting the roof well and screening of equipment. Chair Califf inquired as to how the gutter system's downspouts were to work, and Mr. Alley stated that the downspouts run along the exterior of the building face, and wherever possible they are tucked into the inside corners (he showed several examples on the drawings). The project's color details were also discussed and examples shown, noting that some of the green accent colors integrated into the landscape colors, and the roof/stone and stucco colors were integrated and working together. Committee Member Wheeler asked if all of the colors shown in the roof would be in the project, and it was explained that it was arandom-mix factory blend (essentially there are three different colors -brown, tan and terra cotta). The committee members complimented the team on the excellent presentation of colors. Mr. Polhamus went into detail describing the landscape plan. He described, for example, for 40' wide and 40' high ficus trees that would be transplanted into the project, as well as field grown olive trees and Italian cypress to accent the vertical elements of the architecture highlighted the Tuscany feel of the project. He also discussed the Santa Ana River area landscape that would be landscaped in the drought-tolerant grasses. Howard Morris, Landscape Coordinator for the City, asked several questions about spacing of the plants, etc., noting that the plans showed 1-gallon containers and Mr. Polhamus stated they were using 5-gallon. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 3, 2004 Page 9 A motion was made by Committee Member Joe Woollett to recommend approval of the project as submitted. SECOND: Jon Califf AYES: Jon Califf, Donnie Dewees, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: None MOTION CARRIED N:\C D D\P L N G\Council Commissions Committees\DRC 11-03-04 drem.DOC